Chapter 2: The Motive

Mark David Chapman was born May 10, 1955 in Fort Worth, Texas.¹ He was the son of David Curtis Chapman, originally from Connecticut, and Diane Elizabeth Pease Chapman of Massachusetts.² Mark has one younger sister, Susan Chapman. On June 2, 1979, Mark married Gloria Abe, a young woman of Japanese descent, at the United Methodist Church in Honolulu.³ When Mark was born, his father was a sergeant in the United States Air Force at Fort Worth, presumably at the nearby Carswell Air Force Base. Mark’s mother was a nurse.⁴ A few months after Mark’s birth, the family moved to Indiana where David continued his education at Purdue University, eventually receiving a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from that school. After graduation, David took a job with the American Oil Company (later named Amoco). In 1962, David had become a credit manager with American Oil Company and the Chapman family moved to a small house in Decatur, Georgia, located on Green Forest Drive. At some point, David left American Oil Company and became a loan collector with Citizens and Southern National Bank near Atlanta, Georgia.⁵ David taught guitar at the local YMCA and taught Mark to play as well. When Mark was fourteen, he too joined the local YMCA.⁶

In 1973 Mark graduated from Columbia High School in Decatur.⁷ The ensuing seven years of Mark’s life were somewhat erratic. His primary career was working as a security guard. He enrolled in community colleges a few times but always dropped out. Nevertheless, as a young man, Mark did several unusual things. For example, in June 1975, he went to Beirut Lebanon for about a month on a trip sponsored by the YMCA.⁸ Lebanon was a particularly odd place to be at that time because a bloody civil war had begun in that country two months earlier, in April of 1975.⁹ After returning to America (around August 1975), Mark worked for six months at a YMCA camp for Vietnamese refugees at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas.¹⁰ In early 1977, Mark suddenly moved to Honolulu.¹¹ In early 1978, Mark’s parents filed for divorce.¹² On July 6, 1978, Mark left Honolulu for Tokyo where he began a six week trip around the world. Besides Tokyo, he visited Israel, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Delhi, Geneva, London, Paris, and Dublin.¹³ Around the end of 1978, Mark’s mother, Diane (now single), moved to Hawaii and lived in an apartment near Mark’s.¹⁴ From December 1979 through October 23, 1980, Mark worked as an unarmed security guard at a condominium complex in Honolulu. He reported to condominium manager Joseph Bustamante. According to Bustamante, Chapman signed himself out as "John Lennon" after his last day of work on Oct. 23, 1980;¹⁵ however, I will demonstrate that people can be easily manipulated to do lots of strange things through the use of mind control. I believe Mark David Chapman is a classic FBI mind control subject.

As previously mentioned, Sean Lennon summed up his father’s fate with one word: "counterrevolutionary." I believe the Western powers were troubled by John Lennon for five reasons. First, he was an anti-war activist who played a major role in shifting public opinion against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Second, he was not a world leader, yet he had a huge worldwide following. Third, he was irreverent, even disrespectful, toward Jews and the period known as the Holocaust. Fourth, he decided to come out of a self-imposed five-year retirement in 1980. Had he remained a recluse, he probably would have been left alone. Fifth, he was probably viewed by the FBI as the King of Sixties rock ‘n’ roll. From an historical perspective there were two initial insurgencies of rock ‘n’ roll: Fifties rock and Sixties rock. These two waves of rock ‘n’ roll lasted contiguously for about 18 years, from 1954—with the advent of Elvis Presley—through the end of 1972, when the United States withdrew its military forces from South Vietnam. Within that time span, two central figures emerged as "Kings" of the two rock eras: Elvis Presley and John Lennon.

A third figure, Jim Morrison, also emerged not as a king, but more or less a "Prince" of Sixties rock ‘n’ roll. Morrison fronted the American rock group, the Doors. Although the Doors never achieved the same stature as the Beatles or Elvis,^* Morrison wrote some of the most radical anti-war lyrics of the Sixties, often calling for revolution. There were numerous casualties in the FBI’s war on rock stars, but the Bureau paid special attention to Presley, Lennon, and Morrison. All three died before reaching the age of 43. (Morrison and Presley are is discussed in a later chapters.)

Although Presley is the accepted King of Fifties rock ‘n’ roll, few people have bestowed a similar title on Lennon as the King of Sixties rock ‘n’ roll. But logically it is a fitting description, given that the Beatles led the British Invasion in 1964—a phenomenon which marked the beginning of the second rock ‘n’ roll insurgency in the United States; and Lennon was leader of the Beatles. Hence, this would make Lennon the de facto King of Sixties rock ‘n’ roll. It would also make him a person of interest to the FBI in their ongoing war against rock stars, regardless of his political beliefs or political actions. A contingency plan for Lennon’s assassination was likely established in 1965 after the Beatles’ unprecedented performance at Shea Stadium before 55,600 hysterical fans. After this event, it was apparently decided that the Beatles had become too powerful. The following year, 1966, the Beatles’ worldwide tour was plagued with adversity: Ku Klux Klan rallies in America; their security was intentionally dropped in Manila; someone threw an exploding firecracker on stage in Memphis which sounded like a gun, the entire Beatles’ entourage thought Lennon had been shot. These events ultimately caused the Beatles to stop touring forever.

Many people will argue that Paul McCartney was just as much a leader as John Lennon, so why was John targeted and not Paul? That simply is not true. McCartney does not have the psychological make up of a leader. John’s physical stance on stage and during informal gatherings with the other Beatles, the way he talked to audiences and reporters, clearly indicated he was the leader. My point is not merely to win a Lennon versus McCartney leadership debate. My point is this: If the FBI, or any comparable intelligence agency, conducted psychological profiles on John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, to determine which one was the Beatles’ leader, there is absolutely no question that John Lennon would be named every time. This point of view was further corroborated by Yoko Ono in recent years. In 1998, Yoko provided several written comments about her late husband in a booklet which accompanied the Lennon Anthology, a collection of unreleased Lennon recordings in a box set of CDs. The following is an excerpt where Yoko describes John, referring to him as a king:

Some may consider Yoko’s comments about John being a king as biased, but anyone who admired the Beatles and observed their rise to fame firsthand knows that Yoko’s words are accurate. But Lennon did not magically appear, fully formed as a singer, musician and songwriter. Like all artists, he was influenced by those who came before him. Since his medium was rock ‘n’ roll, he was influenced by rock ‘n’ roll artists of his teenage years, namely Elvis Presley. Whether Lennon knew it or not, he carried a torch passed by the framers of rock ‘n’ roll from the Fifties. The genre’s most creative artists from that period were killed, imprisoned, harassed, ruined, or otherwise forced into early retirement. Contrary to popular belief, the Beatles did not push Elvis from his throne. He abdicated his reign when he joined the United States Army after being drafted in 1958, six years before Americans ever heard of the Beatles. What the Beatles did was rejuvenate rock ‘n’ roll after many believed it was dead and buried. Elvis started the phenomenon of rock ‘n’ roll and 1954, but it was soon crushed, probably by the FBI. Ten years later, in 1964, it came back stronger than ever during the British Invasion with John Lennon and the Beatles leading the charge. A small army of European artists followed and subsequently dominated the American music charts for several years.

To recap, I believe the Western powers were troubled by Lennon because (1) he shifted public opinion against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War, (2) he had a huge worldwide following, (3) he was irreverent, even disrespectful, toward Jews and the period known as the Holocaust, (4) he came out of a self-imposed five-year retirement in 1980, and (5) he was the de facto King of Sixties rock ‘n’ roll, whereas, Elvis was King of the same genre during the Fifties. Of the five reasons listed, the third—disrespect for Jews and the Holocaust—is probably the least known to the public but likely the most troublesome for John Lennon. Although Lennon is widely known for criticizing Christianity, he was not exactly viewed as a gift from God to most Jewish leaders either. Keep in mind that Lennon had many close German friends and spent quite a bit of time in Germany before he became an international star. Many fans remember Lennon for the lyrics in Imagine—which some claim has socialist undertones—and may find it difficult to believe that he empathized with the "German point of view." And by the way, it is worth noting that Lennon publicly acknowledged, in his last Playboy interview, that Yoko helped write a lot of the lyrics to Imagine. Here is John Lennon’s explanation of how Imagine was written as told to Playboy interviewer David Sheff in the fall of 1980:

Some people—in my opinion—are confused about Lennon’s motivation for writing Imagine. They read more into the song than he intended. Some think it is Communist or Socialist propaganda. Hence, people like this find it difficult to believe Lennon had a degree of empathy for Germany and its actions during World War II. This is the problem with labels.

Regardless of Lennon’s seemingly left-wing views, he was not truly a friend of Jews; at least not all Jews. Although John Lennon had many Jewish business associates, he clearly held certain Jews in low esteem and did not hesitate to express his views publicly. In the latter days of the Beatles, John nearly agreed to allow John Eastman—Paul McCartney’s Jewish brother-in-law and attorney—to manage the quartet. (Brian Epstein, the Beatles first manager, died in 1967 of a drug overdose.) But after meeting Eastman, Lennon withdrew his support because of Eastman’s abrasive demeanor. Lennon sarcastically labeled Eastman’s communication skills during their first meeting as an "epileptic fit."¹⁸ Lennon made the following remarks about Eastman’s ethnicity in a 1970 interview with Rolling Stone:

Ironically, all of Lennon’s managers were Jewish. The Beatles original manager, Brian Epstein, was Jewish. So was Alan Klein who became Epstein’s replacement, much to the chagrin of McCartney and his brother-in-law. Based on his comments about Eastman, it appears that Lennon viewed all Jews with a degree of contempt, but apparently wanted one to handle his business affairs because—as I pointed out in the Introduction—the entertainment industry in America is run almost exclusively by Jews. Lennon apparently understood this.

Many people mistakenly believe Yoko is a leftist radical, even a socialist or Communist. Frankly, I don’t like labels because people like John and Yoko will fool us every time. Leftist leanings notwithstanding, Yoko Ono is a Japanese woman, and Japan was one of Hitler’s allies during World War II. Born in 1933, Yoko was 12 when the war ended in 1945. Although her family was wealthy, Yoko’s life was hard for a brief period after the war. She said later that she was always hungry, and the family was often reduced to begging for food door to door.

As irreverent as John was about Jews, Yoko was worse. During John and Yoko’s first bed-in for peace at the Amsterdam Hilton in March 1969, while on their honeymoon, one of the reporters kept asking, "What do you do about fascists? How can you have peace when you’ve got a Hitler?" Yoko replied facetiously, "If I was a Jewish girl in Hitler’s day, I would become his girlfriend. After ten days in bed, he would come to my way of thinking." Lennon remarked years later, "People loved that one."²⁰

Not all people.

My research indicates that a huge propaganda campaign began in 1978—two years before Lennon’s murder—to "re-educate" the public about the period from 1938 through 1945 known as the Holocaust. In fact the word Holocaust—as a description of events associated with Jews in Nazi Germany—was introduced in 1978 in the TV mini-series, The Holocaust, directed by Marvin Chomsky and starred Meryl Streep and James Woods. Before 1978, the term Holocaust was not associated with Nazi Germany and Jews. In 1976, William Stevenson wrote a book, A Man Called Intrepid, which discussed the deaths of six million Jews during World War II a great deal, but Stevenson never used the term Holocaust because that term had not been introduced to the public in 1976.

The Holocaust propaganda campaign continues today. When Lennon came out or retirement in 1980, it is not unreasonable to believe that leaders of worldwide Jewry might be concerned that an untamed John Lennon back in the limelight would spoil their plans. Years earlier Lennon revealed his empathy for Germany and Nazis in the 1967 movie, How I Won the War.

Lennon’s ties to Germany are quite profound. The Beatles played long grueling sets at several rock ’n’ rock clubs in Hamburg for months at a time in the early Sixties before they hit the big-time in 1964. Local venues included the Indra Club, the Kaiserkeller Club, the Top Ten Club, and the Star Club. Hamburg became a major influence in the Beatles’ early sound as well as their look; certainly their renowned mop-top haircuts. The German influence is obvious from the instruments the Beatles played when they achieved worldwide fame in 1964. John Lennon played a Rickenbacker electric guitar, George Harrison played a Gretsch electric guitar, Paul McCartney played a Hofner electric bass guitar, and Ringo Starr played Ludwig drums. You can’t much more German than that. (Why people called it a British invasion, I’ll never know.)

Note: Although Rickenbacker, Gretsch, Hofner and Ludwig are German names, most of the stated companies are not based in Germany.

Lennon’s best friend, Stuart Sutcliffe, was a member of the Beatles in the Hamburg days, but quit the band to marry a German girl, Astrid Kirchherr, and live in Germany. Stuart’s musical abilities were limited, but he was an accomplished artist/painter. And he looked like James Dean, so he added a certain mystique to the Beatles appearance. When Astrid first met the Beatles, her boyfriend was a young German, Klaus Voorman, who later learned to play bass guitar and joined the rock group, Manfred Mann, best known for the hit Do Wah Diddy Diddy (Dum Diddy Do) and a string of others. Voorman was also an artist and designed the cover for one of the Beatles most famous albums, Revolver.

The marriage of Stuart Sutcliffe and Astrid Kirchherr was short-lived because Sutcliffe died tragically of a brain hemorrhage on April 10, 1962. Lennon and Voorman remained close friends until Lennon’s death.

Astrid was a photographer and took lots of pictures of the early Beatles which helped set them apart visually from other bands. Astrid and John reportedly had unfulfilled romantic feelings for one another. She has admitted this in recent years. Their insatiable relationship is revealed in the movie, Backbeat, a film which Astrid publicly endorsed as a realistic depiction of the Beatles’ during their time in Hamburg, her relationship with Stuart Sutcliffe and John Lennon.

To John Lennon, few things were sacred; not even the Holocaust. But before we continue, some background is required. It is difficult to discuss Hitler and the Holocaust openly because so many opinions are based on raw emotion, not intellect. One of the most controversial topics discussed today among intellectuals is the total number of Jews that died in Nazi Germany. The official number is six million. But there appears to be a double-standard among historians as to how they tallied the number of dead in the Holocaust versus the numbers killed in other atrocities.

It is amazing to me that historians are unable to agree on the number of German and Japanese civilians murdered by the allied forces in the fire-bombing of Dresden or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet virtually all mainstream historians agree with great certainty that six million Jews died in Nazi Germany over a seven year period (1938-45) under the most clandestine circumstances. Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were there one day, gone the next. Determining the number dead in those three cities should be relatively uncomplicated, but for some reason, historians cannot agree. For a complex atrocity, everyone agrees; for simpler ones, everyone argues. This double-standard should raise red flags regarding the credibility of historians on this most controversial topic. Are historians being pressured to lie about the Holocaust? If so, why?

Another point of contention is The Night of Broken Glass, an event presented by Western historians as a night, on November 9-10, 1938, when the Nazis brutally attacked Jews at Hitler’s order because of their religion. The name, Night of Broken Glass, refers ironically to the litter of broken glass left in the streets after the night of rioting. It is also referred to as Kristallnacht, a German word meaning "crystal night." Kristallnacht is regarded as the time when Nazi Germany began its large-scale persecution of Jews. But there are two sides to every story.

When Kristallnacht occurred, the German people had already endured a five-year economic boycott imposed by international Jewish organizations wanting to oust Adolf Hitler because of his controversial book, Mein Kemf, which portrayed Jews in a negative light. On August 7, 1933, Jewish mogul Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense."

The Jewish boycott against Germany continued for five years, but it wasn't until November 7, 1938, when a young Jew, Herschel Grynszpan from Poland, walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot German diplomat, Ernst vom Rath, that the Germans began to revolt against Jews in Germany. Large insurrections occurred.

Western historians have traditionally underplayed the murder of vom Rath by Grynszpan. In fact, The Night of Broken Glass is often referred to as the November Pogroms. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica described vom Rath’s murder as follows: "The pretext for the pogroms was the shooting in Paris on November 7 of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by a Polish-Jewish student, Herschel Grynszpan."²¹

The Night of Broken Glass remains highly controversial amongst historians. Jewish political forces would have us believe that the Nazis terrorized innocent Jews without cause. Western historians acknowledge that a young Jew did in fact shoot and kill a German diplomat in Paris, but the incident is surprisingly viewed as unrelated.

According to most historical revisionists, The Night of Broken Glass was not an official implementation of "pogroms" against Jews, but rather the culmination of tensions between German Gentiles toward Jews after a five-year Jewish boycott—instigated by Samuel Untermyer—which hurt the German economy badly. In addition, German citizens felt betrayed by Jews over their defeat in World War I. When Herschel Grynszpan murdered German diplomat Ernst vom Rath, that was the last straw. Violent insurrections against Jews followed. Vom Rath’s cold blooded murder by a young Jew had set off anti-Jewish furor that was difficult to contain. Emotions came pouring out.

So there are two sides to the story: the Jewish side, and the German side.

In 1969, John recorded the song, "God," with the Plastic Ono Band. God has interesting lyrics because they wink at Adolf Hitler in a subtle manner. Let’s examine the lyrics.

In the lyrics, John says he doesn't believe in several well-known people and he doesn't believe in the Beatles either. One of the people he mentions is Hitler. He also mentions Jesus, Kennedy, Buddha, Elvis, and Zimmerman (Bob Dylan's real name). He seems to be saying he doesn't believe in the conventional wisdom about the stated individuals. He obviously didn't believe in the conventional wisdom—the myth if you will—that surrounded the Beatles, Jesus, Elvis, Kennedy, Dylan and so on. In fact, we know he was referring to myths because he used that word when explaining the lyrics to God in a 1970 Rolling Stone interview with Jann Wenner. "I don’t know when I realized I was putting down all these things I didn’t believe in," he told Wenner. "I could have gone on, it was like a Christmas Card…It just got out of hand. But Beatles was the final thing because it’s like I no longer believe in myth, and Beatles is another myth."²²

So Lennon said himself the song God was a list of myths he didn’t believe in. So why did he mention Hitler? What was the myth about Hitler that he didn’t believe in? To answer that question, it helps to understand the conventional wisdom about Hitler. What was it? Everyone thought the Beatles, Jesus, Elvis, Kennedy, and Dylan were God-like. In the song, God, John declared that he didn’t believe in them; they were all myths. A similar attitude about Hitler—that he was God-like—does not exist. Many people admire Hitler, but it would be incorrect to state that such feelings constitute conventional wisdom, or myth. Everyone, even members of the American Nazi Party, would agree that the conventional wisdom about Hitler—the popular view—is that he was a monster. Lennon was saying he didn't believe in the conventional view about the Beatles, Jesus, Elvis, Kennedy, and Dylan. Obviously he was saying he didn't believe the conventional view about Hitler either. John was saying, in effect, "I don't believe the Beatles, Jesus, Elvis, Kennedy, and Dylan were Gods and I don't believe Hitler was a monster." What else could he have meant? Remember, he spent a lot of time in Hamburg. The lyrics to the song God probably give us a clearer picture of John Lennon’s views about Adolf Hitler—which ultimately defined his entire worldview—than anything else he ever said or wrote.

In 1969 Lennon used his celebrity status to protest US involvement in the Vietnam War. He was more than a peace activist, he became a lighting rod for the peace movement. He and his second wife Yoko Ono staged two "bed-ins for peace" in the spring of 1969. The first was in the presidential suite at the Amsterdam Hilton Hotel in March 1969 for a week during their honeymoon.^* The second was in May-June 1969 at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal.²³ A bed-in was essentially a week-long press conference held by the rock superstar and his new bride, both clad in pajamas while lying in bed in their fancy hotel suite. John made the following comments during the March 1969 bed-in at the Amsterdam Hilton Hotel:

During the May-June 1969 bed-in at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal, John and Yoko recorded "Give Peace a Chance." Backup singers included Timothy and Rosemary Leary, Tommy Smothers, and several others. The song was released on July 4, 1969^† by the Plastic Ono Band. John made the following remarks to the press:

Within two months after the second bed-in, the Woodstock Festival—August 15–17, 1969—brought about the harmonious gathering of about 400,000 young rock-music devotees and marked what is considered the high point of the American youth counterculture of the 1960s. It was also viewed by many as a powerful political statement against US involvement in the Vietnam War at a time when American forces were at an all-time high: 540,000 soldiers. Although Lennon was not present at Woodstock, his bed-ins for peace were certainly an inspiration for many of the Woodstock performers as well as the audience.

In 1971, John and Yoko moved to New York City. Lennon later told an interviewer, "I landed in New York City and the first people who got in touch with me were Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman"—two Chicago Seven Conspiracy Trial defendants.²⁶ Based on my research of the FBI, I suspect Rubin and Hoffman were provocateurs for the Bureau. Their mission was probably to get Lennon interested in extreme leftist causes, thereby creating a pretext for the FBI to launch a massive surveillance campaign on him. It has been widely documented that the FBI did in fact conduct an extensive monitoring and surveillance operation on Lennon, complete with wiretaps and voluminous FBI reports.²⁷

By 1975 Lennon had apparently caught onto Rubin’s and Hoffman’s tricks. "I never hear from them," he told an interviewer. "They vanished into the woodwork…Jerry was been nothing but trouble and a pain in the neck since I met him. I decided, as he didn’t lead the revolution, I decided to quit answering the phone."²⁸

Given Lennon’s public statements about Jews, it seems that his decision to move to New York City—one of the most heavily populated Jewish cities in the world—might have been bad judgment. The Manhattan District Attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, is Jewish and has been the DA since 1975. He continues to hold that position today. 550 assistant DAs report to him.²⁹ Ed Koch, also Jewish, was mayor of New York City from 1978 through 1989 and was mayor when Lennon was killed. Does anyone honestly think Morgenthau or Koch would bend over backwards trying to solve the murder of John Lennon, a man who publicly expressed contempt for Jews?

Sean Lennon is not alone in his belief that his father’s murder was the result of a governmental conspiracy. Ex-twentieth precinct lieutenant of detectives Arthur O’Connor told Fenton Bresler that he too supported the notion of conspiracy. O’Connor described Lennon’s murder as a "grounded" case. Grounded is a police term meaning no investigation is necessary because it’s open and shut. A grounded case is one in which the guilty party (Chapman, in this instance) is apprehended at the crime scene and later confesses. Therefore, no further investigation is needed. O’Connor candidly explained to Bresler the flaws in that way of thinking:

On the surface, O’Conner’s words seem about as candid as anyone can expect from a working police officer anywhere; however, his comments become somewhat disingenuous after realizing that the NYPD never wrote a proper police report on Lennon’s murder. (See police report in Appendix D.)

Bresler theorizes that accused assassin Mark David Chapman was the victim of mind control, sponsored by US intelligence; he was a "Manchurian Candidate," a programmed assassin, triggered by a mind control signal to murder Lennon. I have discussed the Manchurian Candidate theory with several critics of US intelligence. Most do NOT believe this is a viable technique for political assassination because it is too unreliable. It is widely documented that mind control is highly studied by US intelligence agencies; however, no compelling evidence has been presented that human beings can be turned into homicidal robots when given proper "triggering mechanisms" (a book, a phrase, a tune, etc.) telling them on a subconscious level to murder someone at a specific time and place.

Further, it is widely documented that the intelligence community has vast techniques available to shape, manipulate, even destroy the human mind through the use of drugs (LSD for example), hypnosis, shock therapy, and so on. I agree with Bresler that Chapman was likely the victim of some of these techniques, but I disagree that Chapman committed the murder.

I believe Chapman was the victim of government sponsored mind control where an obsession was planted in his mind to kill Lennon. I believe the implanted suggestion caused him to purchase a gun to commit the murder. I believe on the night of December 8, 1980, Chapman went to the Dakota building in Manhattan where Lennon lived and waited for him with a gun. I also believe Chapman struggled desperately to shake the demons planted in his mind encouraging him to kill Lennon. He fought the homicidal urge because at heart Chapman was a decent person, incapable of murdering anyone. I believe when the moment of truth came, when he pulled the gun from his coat, he froze and could not fire. Chapman recalls pulling a gun out of his pocket, but he does not recall aiming or firing the gun. Yet he has convinced himself that he murdered Lennon.

It’s fairly obvious that the killer was the elevator operator (aka, the handyman) and he shot Lennon from inside or near the service elevator in the entryway of the Dakota, across from the concierge area where Lennon collapsed.

During the night of December 8/9, 1980, Chapman made and signed the following statement while in police custody:

Months later, Chapman gave a similar account to but admitted he could not remember aiming the gun. His account was recorded by Kevin Sim and aired in a television film documentary The Man Who Shot John Lennon in February 1988. The following is an excerpt from that interview:

The fact that Chapman has no recollection of aiming the gun is a critical point. After stating that he could not recall aiming the gun, Chapman said, "I just pulled the trigger steady five times." It would be interesting to know if he actually recalls pulling the trigger five times or if he just assumes he pulled the trigger five times because he knew five shots were fired and he knew he drew a gun. If he could not remember aiming, how can he recall shooting. Think about it logically. If someone does not remember aiming a gun at someone who they allegedly shot and killed, how can they remember pulling the trigger? If they claim to remember one event but not the other, can either statement be given much credibility?

I believe Chapman cannot recall aiming the gun because he did not shoot Lennon. He only assumes he pulled the trigger because he assumes he is guilty. To be guilty of a shooting someone, one has to pull the trigger.

Chapman has never given a motive for killing Lennon and no one else has established one either. The only explanation is he was completely crazy because insane people are capable of anything, right? And Chapman heard a voice in his head saying "Do it, do it, do it," over and over again. People with schizophrenia hear voices, right? The problem is Chapman was found to be legally sane. Chapman pled guilty and consequently, a trial was never conducted because in the state New York, if you plead guilty to murder, you don’t go to trial. All Chapman got was a sentencing hearing. Nevertheless, the judge at Chapman’s sentencing hearing took great care in establishing that Chapman was in full control of his mental faculties. The judge was Justice Dennis Edwards. Appendix C contains a transcript of that hearing which occurred on June 22, 1981.

As previously stated, on July 6, 1978, Chapman left Honolulu for Tokyo where he began a six week trip around the world. Besides Tokyo, he visited Israel, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Delhi, Geneva, London, Paris, and Dublin. Chapman’s friend and senior YMCA administrator David Moore wrote the following letter of recommendation which allowed him to stay at Y hostels around the world:

Fenton Bresler suggested that Chapman’s international travels—which were sponsored to a large degree by the YMCA—was likely funded by the CIA. It should be noted again, however, that according to FBI official William Sullivan, J. Edgar Hoover maintained offices in London, Paris, Rome, Ottowa, and Mexico City, in violation of the FBI’s charter.³⁴ It should be noted that London and Paris were two cities on Chapman’s travel itinerary. Sullivan also observed that Hoover sometimes used the CIA as a scapegoat to take the blame for misconduct uncovered within the FBI.³⁵

I agree with Bresler that the YMCA was likely used by US intelligence, but it could easily have been FBI, whereas Bresler suggested it was CIA. After all, it was the FBI who was keeping tabs on Lennon, not the CIA.

In an interview with Jim Gaines, Chapman described how he and his former girlfriend attended Evangelical Christian prayer groups led by a psychologist. Chapman described what appears to be the use of hypnosis on members of the prayer group by the psychologist. Gaines described the group in a 1987 article for People Magazine. Here is an excerpt:

If this church psychologist could get church members to bark like a dog and then assume a karate position, it is not implausible that the same church psychologist may have planted an obsession in Chapman’s mind that he must kill John Lennon.

It is worth noting that evangelical Christians are fanatic supporters of Israel. On October 6, 2002, 60 Minutes (CBS TV program) ran a piece about this topic entitled Zionist’s Christian Soldiers. The full transcript of the 60 Minutes piece is presented in Appendix G.

There are many reasons to believe the FBI sponsored Lennon’s assassination. First, it is widely documented that the Bureau conducted extensive surveillance on Lennon from the time he and Yoko moved to New York City in 1971. Fenton Bresler provided a fair amount of information about the Bureau’s surveillance in his book, Who Killed John Lennon?, plus Bresler tries to blame the CIA as well; but I have found no tangible evidence of CIA involvement. Jon Wiener, a history professor at the University of California, provided extensive documentation of the FBI's surveillance of Lennon in the book, Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files.

Second, Chapman had a friend, Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott), who certainly fits the profile of a southern cop with ties to the FBI. Reeves was a policeman for the sheriff’s office in Henry County, Georgia. As previously stated, Reeves gave Chapman exploding hollow-point bullets which were allegedly used to kill Lennon,¹ although I have already presented forensic evidence which exonerates Chapman as Lennon’s killer. Also stated earlier, Lennon’s wounds were on the wrong side of his body, plus, there is a major question as to whether the .38 revolver found at the crime scene is the same weapon purchased by Chapman on October 27, 1980 from J&S Enterprises Ltd, a gun shop in midtown Honolulu. In addition, Albert Goldman asserted—in his book, The Lives of John Lennon—that Chapman threw the gun and bullets in the ocean while in Honolulu some time between November 10 and December 6, 1980. Given Goldman’s dubious track record for accuracy, this assertion is questionable; but no one has challenged it to my knowledge. Therefore, the fact that Chapman had exploding bullets in his possession during his first trip to New York—from October 29, 1980 through November 10, 1980—is somewhat irrelevant; however, the fact that exploding bullets were given to him by a policeman is not. This fact alone points to FBI involvement.

Why would Dana Reeves, a policeman, be so closely involved with the man who would later be sent to prison for murdering John Lennon? To answer this question, allow me to present some background on the relationship between the FBI and police forces throughout the United States. The late William Sullivan—a high-ranking official at the FBI—described in his book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI, how the FBI grooms officers in police forces across America, thereby running what is tantamount to a national secret police force.

Regarding Dana Reeves, it is possible that he was a graduate of the FBI National Academy’s three-week training course for police officers. Or he might have done favors for an Academy graduate, a colleague. It is quite possible that the FBI called on Dana Reeves to make Chapman the fall guy in Lennon’s murder. Reeves became, in effect, one of Chapman’s handlers. He manipulated Chapman into doing things that would later be used against him. In the intelligence community, "sheepdipping" is the term for this form of manipulation. Chapman was nonviolent and never displayed any interest in firearms. But Reeves made sure that Chapman’s co-workers at the YMCA saw them playing with a gun. Later Reeves encouraged Chapman to take a job as a security guard. Chapman even took a target shooting class. It is possible, however, that Reeves had no prior knowledge that Chapman was being set up to take the blame for killing Lennon.

A third factor pointing to FBI involvement is Chapman’s affiliation with the YMCA, which could very well be a used by the FBI as a spy network. A fourth fact is the FBI is clearly a tool for Jewish political forces—a point I will elaborate on shortly—and John Lennon was not exactly a friend of Jews, for reasons previously stated in Chapter 2.

Many critics have accused the FBI of being co-opted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and now does Israel’s bidding. My research, however, indicates that this view is not entirely accurate. The FBI has ALWAYS done Israel’s bidding. In fact, the FBI was apparently established to do Israel’s bidding long before the Jewish state was created in 1948. Unbelievable as it may seem, the FBI was created by a descendant of French aristocracy, a family whose patriarch—in the eyes of many—did more for worldwide Jewry than anyone in the last millennium. I am referring to the French Corsican general and emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821), whose alternate name was "the Corsican." This is not a joke, although it would be funny if it were a farce, but it is completely true. The FBI was founded by a fairly close relative of Napoleon’s. In 1908, Napoleon Bonaparte’s great-nephew, Charles Joseph Bonaparte, created the FBI during his tenure as Attorney General for President Theodore Roosevelt. Actually the organization was originally named the "Bureau of Investigation," but later evolved into the "Federal Bureau of Investigation."³

Charles Joseph Bonaparte was the son of Prince Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte (aka, Napoleon-Joseph-Charles-Paul), nephew of Napoleon I. Prince Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte was the son of Napoleon’s youngest brother, Jerome, and first wife, Elizabeth Patterson. So the FBI can be linked directly, through French aristocratic blood, to Napoleon, the emperor.⁴

Napoleon is loved by Jews worldwide because, on January 31, 1807, he reconvened the Sanhedrin in Paris after the ancient council was dormant for nearly 1,400 years, since AD 425. Subsequent Sanhedrin meetings were convened which ultimately led to Jewish resettlement in France, and later all of Europe, after their expulsion in the 15th and 16th centuries from virtually all of Western Europe. Because of his advocacy for Jews, Napoleon has become a beloved figure in the Jewish community. In fact, Jews have established a Napoleon fan club called the International Napoleonic Society, located in one of my favorite cities: Montreal, Canada. The current president of INS is Ben Weider.⁵

As most religious scholars know, the Sanhedrin was the Jewish council in Palestine under Roman rule, to which various political, religious, and judicial functions have been attributed. It was the Sanhedrin guards who arrested Jesus and brought him to the Sanhedrin headquarters where he was interrogated by high priest Joseph Caiaphas, assisted by his father-in-law, Ananus. They found Jesus guilty of breaking several Jewish laws and turned him over to Roman Governor Pontius Pilate for a formal inquisition and subsequent death by crucifixion. According to the Gospels, Pilate objected and did not want to harm Jesus, but the high priests insisted, and subsequently, Pilate carried out their wishes in order to keep peace with the local Jewish authorities at the Sanhedrin. Bowing to the pressure of the Sanhedrin, Pilate issued a decree that Jesus would be crucified.⁶

The reason Napoleon reconvened the Sanhedrin was to get French Jews to reconcile Talmudic laws (Jewish laws) with the laws of France.⁷ Jews became emancipated in France during the years of the French Revolution, a movement that shook France between 1789 and 1799.⁸ Five critical events occurred during that period—and within ten years therefter—which eventually allowed Jews to resettle in France. The first event was the Declaration of the Rights of Man. French aristocrat Lafayette (aka, the marquis de Lafayette) wrote the first draft the Declaration of the Rights of Man which became law on August 26, 1789. (Note: This is the same Lafayette who fought with the American colonists during the American Revolutionary War, was appointed major-general by the colonists, and convinced Louis XVI to send a 6,000-man expeditionary army to aid the colonists.⁹) Article 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man dealt with religious freedom, and consequently marked the beginning of Jewish resettlement in France after living in exile for several centuries. The following is the text of Article 10 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man:

Second event: On September 27, 1791, Jews were officially emancipated in France—by unanimous decision—by the French National Assembly.¹¹ After emancipation, Jews began settling in cities such as Strasbourg, Marseilles and Paris.¹² Third event: On October 5, 1795, a young French General, Napoleon Bonaparte, crushed royalist opposition (the "White Terror") to the revolutionary government. This was the beginning of Napoleon’s rise to power.¹³ Fourth event: In 1804, Napoleon became emperor of France and ruled until his defeat at the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815.¹⁴ Shortly after Napoleon became emperor, government officials began receiving complaints about Jews, particularly their practice of usury. Many called for the expulsion of Jews, but Napoleon refused to concede to such an extreme resolution. Jewish scholar, Simon Schwarzfuchs, described in his book, Napoleon, The Jews and the Sanhedrin, how Napoleon rejected expulsion but pressed for laws of exception. "To expel the Jews," wrote Schwarzfuchs, "would be a show of weakness; to reform them would be a sign of strength."¹⁵ Fifth event: On January 31, 1807, Napoleon reconvened the Sanhedrin in order to reconcile Jewish law with French law.

Napoleon’s motive for wanting to protect Jews from expulsion is somewhat unclear. Schwarzfuchs portrays him as someone who disliked Jews personally but decided to help them for political reasons. Upon closer examination, however, Schwarzfuchs’ explanation is not believable because Jews were disliked by nearly all political factions in France in the early 1800s. I have found no direct evidence that Napoleon was a descendant of Jewish ancestors, but his actions indicate he quite possibly was. For example, Schwarzfuchs acknowledges that while a French general, Napoleon attempted to advance toward Syria and conquer Palestine in 1799. Schwarzfuchs further notes that a French paper, the Paris Moniteur Universel, announced that Napoleon invited Jews of Asia and Africa to help France conquer the ancient city of Jerusalem. The following is an excerpt from Schwarzfuchs’ book, Napoleon, The Jews and the Sanhedrin:

Schwarzfuchs went on to challenge the authenticity of the cited proclamation itself; however, that discussion is of lesser importance because Schwarzfuchs accepts two important historical points. First, Napoleon attempted to conquer Palestine in 1799. Second, the Paris Moniteur Universel announced that Napoleon invited Jews of Asia and Africa to help France conquer Jerusalem. These are two amazing discoveries in their own right, and Schwarzfuchs does not challenge them. Again, Schwarzfuchs constantly tries to portray Napoleon as someone who disliked Jews personally, but somehow managed to help them through a series of historical events beyond his control. At the end of the day, Napoleon’s decision regarding Jewish—which culminated with his call to reconvene the ancient Sanhedrin—helped the Jews of France a great deal.

After reading Simon Schwarzfuchs’ book, Napoleon, The Jews and the Sanhedrin, it became obvious that Napoleon did more than reconvene the Sanhedrin as a one-time event in 1807. He re-established a permanent Sanhedrin in France, and it exists today, but under a different name. Napoleon renamed the Sanhedrin the French Consistory System. It is important to understand, however, that this assertion—that the Sanhedrin and the French Consistory System are the same thing—is my conclusion, not Schwarzfuchs’. He merely provides information, but he does not connect all of the dots. Schwarzfuchs acknowledges that Napoleon reconvened the Sanhedrin and he (Schwarzfuchs) describes how Rabbis at the Sanhedrin and Napoleon created the Consistory System. What Schwarzfuchs does not tell us directly is that the Sanhedrin and the French Consistory System are essentially the same thing. Let’s examine the two entities. The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition) defines the Sanhedrin as follows:

Now let’s examine the term "Consistory" as defined in the Jewish Encyclopedia by Gotthard Deutsch, Ph.D., Professor of Jewish History, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio. The following is Professor Deutsch’s definition of Consistory:

The two definitions—Sanhedrin versus Consistory—are almost identical, except a Consistory deals with geographic regions; whereas, the Sanhedrin does not. In other words, a Consistory System serves the same purpose as the Sanhedrin, but the former is a distributed system whereas the latter is centralized. Also, when the French Consistory System was first established, it had between 57 and 70 members, per Simon Schwarzfuchs. That is close to the number of members in the ancient Sanhedrin, between 70 and 72. Schwarzfuchs indicates that the French Consistory System consists of 13 regional consistories—each having four or five members—plus a central consistory made up of five members. The following excerpt from Napoleon, The Jews and the Sanhedrin, by Simon Schwarzfuchs, states that each regional consistory has four or five members:

The following excerpt from Napoleon, The Jews and the Sanhedrin, by Simon Schwarzfuchs, states that regional consistories were originally established in thirteen cities:

The following excerpt from Napoleon, The Jews and the Sanhedrin, by Simon Schwarzfuchs, states that the Central Consistory has five members:

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, per Gotthard Deutsch, the modern French Consistory system has undergone little change since its creation by Napoleon. The following is an excerpt from Gotthard Deutsch’s article in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Given that Napoleon Bonaparte reconvened the Sanhedrin in 1807, and given that Napoleon’s great-nephew Charles Joseph Bonaparte created the FBI one hundred and one years later (1908), and given that a permanent French Sanhedrin—renamed the Consistory System—was established during the Sanhedrin meetings in 1807 and 1808, under the auspices of Napoleon, it could easily be argued that the FBI is America’s Napoleonic Sanhedrin.

Interesting things were happening in America and the world around the time the FBI was created in 1908. During a 21-year period from 1896 through 1917, several events occurred which sowed the seeds of Zionism in America. The following is a timeline of those events.

In 1896, Theodor Herzl—founder of the political form of Zionism, a movement to establish a Jewish homeland—published a pamphlet, The Jewish State, which proposed that the Jewish question was a political question to be settled by a world council of nations. In August 1897, Herzl organized a world congress of Zionists that met in Basel, Switzerland. This is considered the first step toward establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.²² On September 6, 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz.^* McKinley was succeeded by his vice-president, Theodore Roosevelt.

As previously stated, in 1908, then-US attorney general Charles Joseph Bonaparte—who served in President Theodore Roosevelt’s administration—established the Bureau of Investigation within the Department of Justice ostensibly to answer the need for a federal investigative body. Again, Charles Joseph Bonaparte was the great-nephew of Napoleon the Emperor, and Napoleon is a beloved figure within the worldwide Jewish community. In 1913 B'nai B'rith established the Anti-Defamation League.²³ The following is the ADL’s charter since its creation:

B'nai B'rith is represented at the United Nations through its membership in the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations. B'nai B'rith, founded in New York City in 1843, defends a host of Jewish causes which include promoting intercultural relations, sponsoring Jewish college students (especially through the Hillel Foundation), supporting hospitals and philanthropic institutions, providing vocational guidance, sponsoring welfare projects in Israel, assisting Jewish victims of natural disasters, and carrying on a broad program of community service and welfare for Jewish people.²⁵

Another big event occurred in 1913. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act which established a central banking authority in the United States: the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve has historically been run to a large extent by Jewish individuals. For example, the current chairman of the Federal Reserve, Allen Greenspan, is Jewish. The Federal Reserve performs two major tasks: (a) it makes loans to commercial banks, and (b) it sets the prime-lending rate, which is the rate charged to banks that borrow money. The prime-lending rate is typically increased when there is a concern of inflation during a vibrant and fast-growing economy. On the flip side, the prime-lending rate is typically decreased when the economy slows. The individual who controls the prime-lending rate—the chairman of the Federal Reserve—has vast control over the United States economy. In addition, the Federal Reserve is authorized to issue Federal Reserve notes that constitute the entire supply of paper currency in the country. The system consists of a Board of Governors, twelve Federal Reserve banks, the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Advisory Council, and, since 1976, a Consumer Advisory Council. There are several thousand member banks.²⁶

A third big event occurred in 1913; however, it was not necessarily connected to Jews, as far as I can determine. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified, which gave Congress the power to establish an income tax. This was the birth of the Internal Revenue Service as we know it today, but its roots go back to the Civil War when—in 1862—President Lincoln and Congress created the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and established an income tax to finance war expenses. The income tax was repealed ten years later, but Congress revived it in 1894. The following year, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.²⁷ Eighteen years later, the 16^th Amendment was ratified and the IRS became a permanent fixture within the infrastructure of the United States government. It seems a bit odd that three major events occurred in 1913. The ADL, IRS, and Federal Reserve were all created that year. In addition, 1913 was a transitional year when President William H. Taft was leaving office and Woodrow Wilson was entering the White House.

On November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration—which endorsed Jewish migration to Palestine—was ratified by Britain. The Balfour Declaration was a formal statement of British support for the establishment of Palestine as a national homeland for Jewish people. This set the stage for the eventual establishment of the independent Jewish State of Israel thirty-one years later (in 1948). The Balfour Declaration was a brief official communiqué reportedly written by Sir Arthur James Balfour,^* British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and sent—on November 2, 1917—to Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild of the English Zionist Federation.²⁸ The following is the text of the Balfour Declaration:

When the Bureau of Investigation was created in 1908, its director was Stanley W. Finch, a man whose name has essentially been erased from history books. Few people realize that five men served as FBI director prior to J. (John) Edgar Hoover’s appointment in 1924. The "pre-Hoover" directors were: Stanley W. Finch, 1908 - 1912; Alexander Bruce Bielaski, 1912 - 1919; William E. Allen, 1919 (Acting); William J. Flynn, 1919 - 1921; and William J. Burns, 1921 - 1924.²⁹

In 1924 Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone (later to become chief justice of the United States) appointed J. Edgar Hoover (b.1895–d.1972) as director. Hoover presided as FBI director for 48 years until his death in 1972.³⁰ I have not researched Hoover’s heritage extensively, but I know that his father was Dickerson Naylor Hoover (b.1857–d.1925), his mother was Anna Marie Scheitlin (b.1860–d.1938), and his maternal grandparents were Jacob Scheitlin and Margaretha Hitz. Jacob and Margaretha were apparently Swiss and were married in Saint Gallen, Switzerland on April 11, 1823.³¹ Whether Jacob Scheitlin and Margaretha Hitz still lived in Switzerland when Theodor Herzl held the first World Congress of Zionists in Bazel, Switzerland in August 1897 is uncertain and requires more research; but it is an interesting question. J. Edgar Hoover was two years old when Herzl’s renowned event occurred.

If Hoover turns out to be secretly Jewish, he certainly would not be the first high ranking US official to keep his ethnicity secret. In my book, Opium Lords, I assert that President Lyndon was secretly Jewish as well.

On the FBI’s official webpage (http://www.fbi.gov), there is a page with photographs of all the directors since the Bureau’s creation in 1908. Oddly, webmaster chose a photograph of a younger J. Edgar Hoover which gives the definite impression that Hoover was partially African-American, a rumor I have heard in the past. In fact, a former friend of mine—an individual I now suspect is an FBI informant—told me on numerous occasions that Hoover was partially black. Astonishingly, the FBI is subtly pushing the same story by displaying a photograph of Hoover on its web site where he looks very much like an African-American. But if one analyzes the photo of Hoover closely, the only "black" feature he possesses is kinky hair, a physical attribute of many Jews as well as blacks. Consequently, I have concluded that the story about Hoover’s black heritage is merely disinformation, manufactured by the FBI, intended to disguise his true ethnicity which is apparently Jewish.

The FBI has 59 field offices throughout the United States and hundreds of satellite offices reporting to each field office. The following is an overview of the FBI’s field office infrastructure from the Bureau’s official website:

The FBI has 59 field offices in the following US cities: (Mailing addresses are shown in Appendix J.)

Albany, New York

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Anchorage, Alaska

Atlanta, Georgia

Baltimore, Maryland

Birmingham, Alabama

Boston, Massachusetts

Buffalo, New York

Charlotte, North Carolina

Chicago, Illinois

Cincinnati, Ohio

Cleveland, Ohio

Columbia, South Carolina

Dallas, Texas

Denver, Colorado

Detroit, Michigan

El Paso, Texas

Honolulu, Hawaii

Houston, Texas

Indianapolis, Indiana

Jackson, Mississippi

Jacksonville, Florida

Kansas City, Missouri

Knoxville, Tennessee

Las Vegas, Nevada

Little Rock, Arkansas

Los Angeles, California

Louisville, Kentucky

Memphis, Tennessee

North Miami Beach, Florida

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Mobile, Alabama

Newark, New Jersey

New Haven, Connecticut

New Orleans, Louisiana

New York, New York

Norfolk, Virginia

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Omaha, Nebraska

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Phoenix, Arizona

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland, Oregon

Richmond, Virginia

Sacramento, California

St. Louis, Missouri

Salt Lake City, Utah

San Antonio, Texas

San Diego, California

San Francisco, California

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Seattle, Washington

Springfield, Illinois

Tampa, Florida

Washington, D.C.³³

The FBI’s charter was originally domestic criminal investigation, later expanding its role—under FDR, in 1939—to investigating security affairs.³⁴ Somehow the Bureau has managed to expand internationally, competing with the CIA for international intelligence services. The following is an overview—from the Bureau’s official website—of the FBI’s involvement in international affairs:

FBI offices reside in the following cities worldwide, and others:

Almaty, Kazakhstan

Amman, Jordan

Ankara, Turkey

Athens, Greece

Bangkok, Thailand

Beijing, China

Berlin, Germany

Bern, Switzerland

Bogota, Colombia

Brasilia, Brazil

Bridgetown, Barbados

Brussels, Belgium

Bucharest, Romania

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Cairo, Egypt

Canberra, Australia

Caracas, Venezuela

Copenhagen, Denmark

Frankfurt, Germany

Guadalajara Mexico

Hong Kong, China

Islamabad, Pakistan

Kiev, Ukraine

Lagos, Nigeria

London, England

Madrid, Spain

Manila, Philippines

Mexico City, Mexico

Monterray, Mexico

Moscow, Russia

Nairobi, Kenya

New Delhi, India

Tijuana, Mexico³⁶

Although Sullivan’s official position during his last year with the Bureau was third in command, he assumed the role of acting director. "For all practical purposes I acted as Hoover’s number two man," Sullivan wrote, "because by 1970 Clyde Tolson [the actual number two man] was very ill, having suffered from strokes that left him physically disabled."³⁸

On November 9, 1977, Sullivan was shot and killed—reportedly by Robert Daniels Jr, age 22, of Libson, New Hampshire—while hunting near his home in Sugar Hill, New Hampshire. Sullivan was struck in the neck with a .30-caliber high-powered rifle. He was 65 years old. Daniels—the son of a state policeman—claimed to have mistaken Sullivan for a deer. He was arrested, charged with a misdemeanor—"shooting a human being by accident"—and released to the custody of his father. Later Daniels was fined $500 and lost his hunting license for 10 years. No further investigation was ever done.³⁹ (See Appendix H for details about Sullivan’s death.)

Sullivan’s book—an exposé on Hoover’s FBI—was published in 1979, two years after Sullivan’s death. Sullivan had recruited journalist Bill Brown to help write it. Brown met with Sullivan on numerous occasions and collected a series of taped interviews from which he transcribed, edited, and turned into a book. The book was a major indictment of J. Edgar Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, and the FBI as an institution. I have read the book in its entirety, and for the most part, I am satisfied that it is genuine, that it reflects the views of a fair-minded individual who held a high-ranking position with the FBI for many years. Having stated that, however, I suspect Brown—or someone else involved in the book’s publication—added several fraudulent references to Jews, and how the FBI discriminates against them. According to Brown, Sullivan believed there were not enough Jews and other minorities in the FBI. Here is an excerpt from The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI, by William Sullivan and Bill Brown:

Let’s back up and examine Sullivan’s alleged statements. He made them in 1941. Blacks in particular were kept out of many facets of American society at that time. Jim Crow Laws had been in place in the South since 1877 and continued until the 1950s when the civil-rights movement gained political momentum. But segregation wasn’t limited to the South. In 1941, the armed forces in the United States was still segregated. It ended seven years later—on July 31, 1948—when President Truman integrated the US military by executive order. Consequently, I find it difficult to believe that William Sullivan—a man I believe was highly intelligent—would think it was something out of the ordinary to exclude blacks or Hispanics from any organization in 1941. If the FBI was practicing racial discrimination in 1941, then they were right in step with mainstream America. In 1941, segregation was as American as mom and apple pie.

Regarding discrimination against Jews, how would Sullivan have known who was Jewish and who wasn’t? Many Jews have obvious physical characteristics—such as long pointed noses with flaring nostrils, kinky black hair, and so on—or they wear yarmulkes or similar Jewish style clothing. But many Jews have non-stereotypical noses, straight hair, and do not wear garments which reveal their ethnicity. How would an intelligent man like William Sullivan know for certain that none of his fifty classmates were Jewish? Recall, this was his first day at the Justice Department. He allegedly concluded—purely from observation—that none of his classmates were Jewish. "As I took a closer look at my classmates," Sullivan allegedly stated, "I started to notice a certain sameness about the fifty of us." He only looked at them, he didn’t actually talk to them. Yet he allegedly concluded that none of them were Jewish. This is simply not believable. I also find it difficult to believe that Sullivan would make such a claim about Jews specifically, given the FBI’s Jewish roots. Even more troubling, Brown included in Appendix C (of Sullivan’s book) several photographs of memos between Hoover and Sullivan, dated September and October 1971, when Sullivan was forced into retirement by Hoover. The photos look authentic—memos generated from typewriters with the authors’ signatures included. But a final letter from Sullivan to Hoover is displayed not as a photograph, but as standard text, like the rest of the book. The letter is several pages long and contains a section entitled, "The FBI and Jewish Applicants," where Sullivan allegedly criticizes the bureau for discriminating against Jews. Why would the other memos between Sullivan and Hoover be photographs of the originals, but the letter containing a reference to the FBI’s practice of discriminating against Jews be text? This further supports my conclusion that Bill Brown—or a colleague—made fraudulent references to Jews in Sullivan’s book as a means of hiding the FBI’s true agenda. But those few references notwithstanding, the rest of the book appears to be quite genuine.

Figure 3-1 is a diagram of a five-tiered system wherein the FBI works jointly with Jewish media moguls to control, suppress and censor objectionable articles published in virtually all media outlets in every small town, city and village throughout all fifty states in the United States of America. Tier 1—Six media conglomerates and major newspapers/magazines—is controlled directly by Jews. Most of the major news outlets are controlled by a handful of Jewish individuals through their executive control of six media conglomerates. These Jewish individuals include, but are not limited to: Michael Eisner, Edgar Bronfman Sr, Edgar Bronfman Jr, Sumner Redstone, Dennis Dammerman, Gerald Levin, Robert Pittman and Peter Chernin who hold (or recently held) high-ranking executive positions at the following six media conglomerates:^* AOL Time Warner, the Walt Disney Company, Vivendi Universal, Viacom, General Electric, and News Corporation Limited. The stated media conglomerates have a monopoly on the electronic news and entertainment outlets. Collectively, they control ABC, NBC, CBS, the Turner Broadcasting System, CNN, MTV, Universal Studios, MCA Records, Geffen Records, DGC Records, GRP Records, Rising Tide Records, Curb/Universal Records, and Interscope Records.⁴¹

Many of the larger independent newspapers are owned by Jewish interests as well. An example is the family of the late Samuel I. "Si" Newhouse, which owns Advance Publications, which in turn owns Condé Nast Publications, Parade Publications, Fairchild Publications, American City Business Journals, the Golf Digest companies, plus newspapers in more than twenty American cities. Advance Publications also has extensive interests in cable television, as well as in Internet sites which are related to its print publications.⁴²

Figure 3-1: Five tiers of Media Control

Tiers 2 through 5 are FBI operations apparently implemented at the behest of Jewish power brokers. According to Sullivan, the FBI’s primary mission—under Hoover—was public relations and propaganda, not criminal investigations or intelligence gathering. The following is an excerpt from Sullivan’s book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI:

Tier 2—Small dailies & weeklies—is controlled by the FBI through issuance of press releases to small local newspapers and journalists throughout the country. Tier 2 is a bona fide propaganda machine run by 11,000 FBI agents^* working from the Bureau’s 59 field offices. The following is William Sullivan’s description of the FBI’s propaganda machine (aka, Tier 2) from his book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI:

Tier 3—Opinion leaders backed by the FBI—is an operation wherein journalists, news commentators and celebrities are backed by the Bureau—or put on its payroll—to serve as opinion leaders, shaping the worldview of the American public to the Bureau’s liking. William Sullivan claimed that Walter Winchell was groomed and backed by the FBI. The following are Sullivan’s comments about Winchell from Sullivan’s book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI:

Undoubtedly, the FBI has developed several opinion leaders—particularly celebrities—in positions of prominence and influence today. Several names come to mind, although I don’t have absolute corroboration from someone of William Sullivan’s stature. But as the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." I suspect Oprah Winfrey, Jay Leno, Dennis Miller, Rush Limbaugh, and Bob Woodward are backed by the Bureau. They have huge audiences; collectively these five individuals can garner public support for almost any issue, from supporting President George W. Bush’s war with Iraq to endorsing the official version of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.^* In addition, these five individuals can—and often do—tar and feather individuals targeted by the FBI. (e.g., O.J. Simpson, Gary Condit, Robert Blake, President Clinton, and so on). In exchange, these individuals—who possess only mediocre talent—enjoy vast celebrity status.

Oprah Winfrey is a shining example of how someone with limited talent, limited intellect, average interviewing skills, limited physical beauty, and no sex appeal can acquire vast wealth and popularity merely by pushing FBI propaganda when needed. Jay Leno has a degree of skill as a stand-up comic, but he is a terrible interviewer. Yet he hosts a popular late-night talk show. Although Leno is a compulsive giggler, he can be extremely mean-spirited. Almost single-handedly Leno destroyed the career of California congressman Gary Condit by broadcasting rumors and innuendoes that Condit not only had a sexual affair with Chandra Levi, but murdered her as well.

Tier 4—the FBI’s clipping service—involves an area of media control which appears to have a punitive element. In Tier 4, the Bureau apparently creates dossiers for American citizens who write objectionable articles which appear in the various newspapers across the United States. According to William Sullivan, every field office—since he joined the FBI in 1941—had a group whose function was (is) to read newspapers and clip out articles critical of Hoover and mail the articles back to Washington. The following is Sullivan’s description from his book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI:

This is perhaps the most reprehensible invasion of privacy and free speech imaginable in a free society. It appears as though the FBI has a long history of keeping files on citizens for writing letters to editors that are deemed objectionable by the Bureau. There is no reason to believe the Bureau ever stopped the practice of clipping newspaper articles after Hoover died in 1972. In fact, the practice may have been implemented when the Bureau was first created in 1908, years before Hoover became director.

Tier 5—Usenet activity—has only been in place since the Internet became visible to the general public in the early 1990s. After participating on numerous Usenet discussion forums for several years, I have concluded that several intelligence agencies have teams of people who read and post messages to hundreds of political newsgroups and often non-political discussion forums as well. I have also concluded that the FBI is by far the most aggressive and the most omnipresent intelligence organization monitoring the Usenet, a topic of discussion in the next chapter. For now let’s focus on traditional media outlets.

Based solely on Sullivan’s description of the FBI, the Bureau appears to be a highly oppressive regime that has operated with little restraint for nearly one hundred years (since 1908 when it was created). It keeps close tabs on local newspapers throughout America by having people in its 59 field offices read and clip objectionable articles and mail them to headquarters in Washington, DC. The Bureau has backed radio commentators Walter Winchell and probably backs celebrities like Oprah Winfrey, Jay Leno, Dennis Miller, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Woodward and countless others. The larger media outlets are controlled by six media conglomerates, all controlled by Jewish owners and executives. As a result, the American news media are tightly controlled. The concept of a free press is long gone. It is a huge, largely monolithic propaganda machine. With such control over the American news media, virtually any illusion can be created; anything is possible.

PART II: THE BUREAU

In the spring of 2003, I began posting my findings about John Lennon’s murder on an Internet discussion forum about the Beatles: rec.music.beatles. A few people responded in a civilized manner, but overall, the response was vitriolic, demented, vulgar, and sadistic. The participants on rec.music.beatles quickly became more interested in learning and publicizing my true identity than responding to my research. Their message was clear and uniform: Stop discussing Lennon’s murder! This reaction was not entirely unexpected. Over the past six years, I have posted political and historical commentary on numerous Internet discussion forums and typically I get similar reactions when posting controversial articles. Having stated that, the loathsome comments I received from individuals on rec.music.beatles in response to my Lennon articles stands out in comparison to other discussion forums. Usually I post to serious, political forums, so a degree of nastiness is expected. Why would I be greeted with such rudeness from an overtly light-hearted forum? It’s the Beatles, after all, so why all the fuss? Because the Beatles’ leader, John Lennon, was one of the most politically active and highly influential voices in the tumultuous Sixties.

Surprisingly, the most viscous and vulgar comments I received from rec.music.beatles dealt with a lapse in Lennon’s security on the night he was killed. The discussion centered around Jose Perdomo, the security guard tasked to protect the iron-gate entrance of the Dakota on the night Lennon was killed. As previously stated, Perdomo was an anti-Castro Cuban, a group with strong ties to the US intelligence community since the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. On June 17, 2003, I started a discussion thread entitled Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard? It was a spin-off from another discussion between Derek Larsson and someone named Cromwell. Derek wrote: "There also seems to be a profound lack of security provided by doorman Jose Perdomo - whose job it was to protect all tenants (several of them celebrities) from strangers and hangers-on and who was the only ‘eye-witness’ to the shooting. His background needs to be investigated." Cromwell replied: "He was a doorman NOT A BODYGUARD." I disagreed: "‘Doorman’ is a misleading title," I remarked. "The doorman at the Dakota is a glorified security guard. I know because I've been there. I talked to one of the doormen. He was definitely security…The word ‘doorman’ suggests he is a bellhop. I'm not even sure if doorman is a genuine title or something the media created. The doorman does not stand by a door, he stands at the entrance of the Dakota. The entrance is about 15 feet wide with iron gates on both sides, but the gates are normally open. Derek is correct in stating that Jose Perdomo's job was to protect the tenants."

The Internet police immediately launched an assault to thwart the security-related discussion. Someone using the screen name Tna Yzarc re-titled the thread "Salvatorwriter, asshole, bumboy, neo-nazi or security guard?" I responded by changing it back to the original title and recited the poem If by Rudyard Kipling. Tna Yzarc retitled it "Salvadorwriter, moron or murderer?" I continued changing the title back and reciting If a bit more. Tna Yzarc changed the titled to "Salvadorwriter FUCK OFF AND STOP SPAMMING YOU ASSHOLE." Tna Yzarc then wrote the following extremely vulgar comment: "I think you're a pathetic stupid cunt and you should go back to fucking your mom." Someone named Jim sarcastically replied, "Wow - what a CLEVER response!!" Black Monk replied, "You think Sally deserves better?" Charlie Gauger (aka, Mister Charlie) remarked, "Hey, it works for me." Susan added, "A bit crude, but it works." Charlie Gauger (aka, Mister Charlie) added the following insults: "Of course, like a dog returning to its own vomit Sal comes back yet again." Someone called "Ehtue" complimented Charlie Gauger on his word choice: "What a turn of phrase! I'll steal that one for sure some time in the future! Somewhere, somehow." Fourteen sample messages in the cited discussion thread about Jose Perdomo are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 56 through 69.)

This was a thoroughly despicable display, but it was quite revealing. It was not merely a few cranks blowing off steam. The discussion itself was not political or even controversial in nature. It was politically neutral, a discussion about the crime scene where John Lennon was murdered and a probable lapse in security when the crime occurred. This is the type of information prosecutors need to bring guilty parties to justice. The ensuing assault on me was clearly a joint effort by several people, probably sponsored by the FBI, paid for by the American tax payer. To my knowledge, the topic of FBI activity on Internet discussion forums has never been discussed seriously in any book. I shall attempt to do that now, and I shall use my discussions on Beatles newsgroup, rec.music.beatles, as a case study for observing FBI activity across the entire Usenet community.

If we accept William Sullivan’s view—from Chapter 3—that the FBI’s primary mission is propaganda, then it becomes obvious why taming the Internet is the Bureau’s top priority. The Internet allows people to communicate with one another without conventional constraints such as newspaper editors, journalists, and other media gatekeepers. The Internet has obviously created problems for the power elite who wish to the keep citizens of the world in the dark as they have since the dawn of civilization. In theory, there are no overt gatekeepers of information flow on the Internet, but I will demonstrate—in this chapter—that there are plenty of covert gatekeepers. The FBI in particular must control it because the Internet is having such a dramatic impact on all facets of life on the planet. The Internet has dramatically transformed business and society, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. It has revolutionized communications and methods of commerce by allowing various computer networks around the world to interconnect. It provides a capability so powerful and general that it can be used for almost any purpose that depends on information, and is easily accessible by anyone. It supports human communication via electronic mail (e-mail), "chat rooms," newsgroups, and audio and video transmission. It also allows people to work collaboratively at several different locations. It supports access to digital information by many applications, including the World Wide Web. The Internet has proved to be a spawning ground for a large and growing number of "e-businesses" that carry out most of their sales and services over the Internet.

The Internet emerged in the United States in the 1970s but did not become visible to the general public until the early 1990s. By the beginning of the 21st century approximately 360 million people, or roughly 6 percent of the world's population, were estimated to have access to the Internet. It is widely assumed that at least half of the world's population will have some form of Internet access by 2010 and that wireless access will play a growing role. The Internet was originally a military network created in 1969 by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the U.S. Department of Defense. At this time the Internet was a general-purpose computer network shared by the military and universities. Originally named ARPANET, a "D" (for "Defense") was later added making the new name DARPANET. By the 1980s other U.S. governmental bodies were heavily involved with networking, including the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Over time, control of the Internet steadily migrated from government stewardship to private sector participation and finally to private custody with limited government oversight. Today a loosely structured group of several thousand interested individuals known as the Internet Engineering Task Force participates in a grassroots development process for Internet standards which are maintained by the nonprofit Internet Society, an international body with headquarters in Reston, Virginia. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), another nonprofit, private organization, oversees various aspects of policy regarding Internet domain names and numbers.¹

The Usenet is a distributed bulletin board system which allows people to post and read articles in specified categories. Originally implemented at Duke University, and supported mainly by Unix machines, it quickly grew to become international in scope and, before the advent of the World-Wide Web, probably the largest decentralized information utility in existence. Usenet encompasses government agencies, universities, high schools, businesses of all sizes, and home computers of all descriptions. In the beginning, not all Usenet hosts were on the Internet, but by 1993, it hosted over 1200 newsgroups of new technical articles, news, discussion, and chatter every day. By November 1999, the number of groups had grown to over 37,000. To join in you originally needed a news reader program but there are now several web gateways available such as Dejanews/Google Groups. In addition, America OnLine (AOL), CompuServe and other Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide direct access to newsgroups via their graphic user interfaces.

Anyone who has ever posted messages to Usenet newsgroups—particularly political discussion forums—has certainly felt the wrath of the FBI’s "Internet police" when comments become too provocative. FBI activity on the Internet is not merely speculation, conjecture, or theory; it is fact. The last two FBI directors—Louis Freeh and Robert S. Mueller, III—have publicly disclosed that the Bureau has implemented an aggressive campaign to combat computer issues related to Cyberterrorism.

I have been aware of the FBI’s infiltration of Usenet newsgroups since I began using the Internet around June of 1997. At that time I became casually acquainted with a US Marshall, through mutual friends. I was surprised to learn that this individual genuinely enjoyed discussing controversial topics like the Kennedy assassination, the death of Vince Foster, Waco, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and similar issues. This individual expressed contempt for the FBI and warned me not to post political messages on the Internet because "the FBI is all over those discussion groups."

Needless to say I did not take the federal agent’s advice, but I have often thought about that initial warning throughout the ensuing years. When I first began posting on Usenet newsgroups, I was part of an informal group of friends who shared similar political beliefs and wanted to share them with others. Had I begun posting messages alone, I probably would have stopped right away because of the venomous written attacks I received in response to my messages.

In Chapter 3, we discussed five tiers of media control^* used jointly by Jewish political forces and the FBI. Figure 4-1 shows the same five layers, plus four sub-layers within Tier 5, Usenet Activity. These four sub-layers are known FBI operations which are probably used to run surveillance on the entire Usenet (37,000 newsgroups). Sub-layer 5.1—Computer squads—is the Bureau’s infrastructure for running a spy network on the Usenet. On March 7, 2001, former FBI Director Louis Freeh addressed the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce in McLean, Virginia. In his speech, he stated that Cybercrimes had become a priority for the FBI, and consequently, the Bureau had established "16 offices with computer squads and 200 agents nationwide working full-time on computer issues." In addition, Freeh said "the bureau has established new laboratory units to deal with confiscated cyberevidence."²

Figure 4- 1: Tier 5 - FBI Penetration of Usenet

On February 11, 2003, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III testified before the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in Washington, D.C. regarding the War on Terrorism. Mueller advised the Committee that "Cyberterrorism" is an emerging threat. In effect, Mueller told the Committee that the FBI has people monitoring the Internet aggressively. Here is an excerpt from Mueller’s statement to the Committee regarding Cyberterrorism:

On October 31, 2002, Mueller gave a speech at the Information Technology Association Of America (ITAA) in Fairfax, Virginia. The speech was about combating E-Crime and Cyberterrorism. Mueller boasted about a unit in San Francisco, which he helped create, that was implemented "exclusively to prosecute computer crimes and intellectual property crimes." Mueller also bragged about a "strike force" in the San Jose area that addressed computer crimes. He remarked that similar units have been implemented across the country, modeled after the units in San Francisco and San Jose. Here is an excerpt from Mueller’s speech to the ITAA:

Based on the cited statements made by Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller, we know several things about the FBI’s Cyberterrorism operation. First, the Bureau has 16 offices across the country set up with computer squads dedicated to Cyberterrorism and related computer issues. Second, 200 FBI agents work full-time running the stated computer squads in 16 offices. Third, computer squads (aka, strike forces) are known to have a presence in San Francisco and San Jose.^† Fourth, other computer squads across the United States were modeled after the offices in San Francisco and San Jose. These four points are the essence of what I call Sub-layer 5.1—Computer Squads—as shown in Figure 4-1.

Sub-layer 5.2—Letter writing operation—is an FBI operation that has existed since the 1940s, and possibly years earlier. Reading Usenet articles and posting responses requires more than mere computer facilities and people with computer skills. It requires writers—lots of writers. According to William Sullivan, J. Edgar Hoover set up a substantial letter writing operation—misleadingly named the Crime Records Division—strictly for public relations purposes. The following is Sullivan’s description of the Crime Records Division from his book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI:

Based on the cited statements by William Sullivan, we know five things about the FBI’s propaganda apparatus which could easily be applied to the Bureau’s Cyberterrorism operation. First, the FBI has a huge letter-writing apparatus, known as the Crime Records Division. Second, the letter-writing apparatus was used to reply to letters sent to the Bureau from the public, basically a means of responding to fan mail. Third, form letters were not used. Consequently, a team of writers was needed. Fourth, the Crime Records Division also dealt with the press, congressmen and senators. Fifth, the Crime Records Division acted as a liaison between the motion picture industry and the Bureau. We know the movie industry has historically been controlled by Jewish media moguls and is controlled today by the six media conglomerates (Tier 1). Consequently, the fifth point reveals an historical link between the Bureau and the six media conglomerates (Tier 1). These five points are the essence of what I call Sub-layer 5.2—the Letter writing operation (Crime Records Division)—as shown in Figure 4-1. According to Sullivan, the Crime Records Division was still operational in the Seventies. There is no reason to believe it was ever dissolved. If this is the case, it is easy to envision it being utilized to reply to objectionable articles posted on Usenet newsgroups.

Sub-layer 5.3—FBI’s "clipping service"—is an extension of the same clipping service used in Tier 4 to monitor local news papers across the United States. As previously stated in Chapter 3, every field office has a group whose function is to read newspapers and clip out objectionable articles and mail the clipped articles back to Washington for analysis.⁷ The implications here are staggering. Such a service—which has existed since the 1940s—could easily be modernized to read Usenet newsgroups in addition to reading newspapers and magazines. To maximize efficiency, people assigned to the clipping service probably read articles, but do not respond. If they reply at all, it is probably short replies, because they simply don’t have enough time to write lengthy communiqués and complete their assigned reading as well. If an aggressive individual is posting objectionable material on a particular newsgroup, then the Crime Records Division (Sub-layer 5.2; see Figure 4-1) is notified and one of its writers responds. More writers are brought in as needed.

Sub-layer 5.4—Massive informants—provides depth to the FBI’s Usenet surveillance. The clipping service in particular needs informants because they monitor most of the Usenet newsgroups (37,000, total). Keep in mind, however, that the clipping service mainly reads articles, they don’t respond. So monitoring the Usenet is not as difficult as one might think, particularly if massive informants are recruited and paid low salaries (slightly above minimum wage) to read articles posted on newsgroups and notified others to respond as needed. US courts have given the FBI carte blanche authority to use informants. The following text—from the FBI’s official website, under Frequently Asked Questions—is the FBI’s policy regarding its use of informants:

As previously stated, there are about 37,000 Usenet newsgroups and only 200 agents assigned to the Bureau’s computer squads, per former Director Freeh. Obviously 200 agents cannot monitor 37,000 newsgroups. But this is easily solved by using informants and by streamlining the number of newsgroups under surveillance. Streamlining newsgroups means they are likely assigned one of three surveillance levels: Monitor, Penetrate, or Control. Monitor simply means agents or informants read articles, but do not respond. If there is a burst of activity, the monitoring "guard" notifies the Crime Records Division and writers are assigned to reply to the objectionable articles. Penetrate means several informants—and occasionally agents—are assigned to read articles and post responses at will to objectionable material on newsgroups on a targeted newsgroup. Control means one or more informants or agents are opinion leaders on a targeted newsgroup. Opinion leaders often post entire articles on a targeted newsgroup without responding to an objectionable article. In addition, opinion leaders often have their own websites.

Figure 4-2 is a model I developed to demonstrate how 200 FBI agents might manage computer squads in 16 offices—with known facilities in San Francisco and San Jose—to run surveillance on 37,000 Usenet newsgroups. Keep in mind, Figure 4-2 is only a model, based partially on deductive reasoning, but also based largely on first-hand information about the Bureau’s propaganda infrastructure, per William Sullivan, plus public statements made by FBI directors Louis Freeh and Robert Mueller regarding the FBI’s Cyberterrorism efforts (see Figure 4-1 and accompanying text). The objective of the model is not to guess precisely how the FBI runs surveillance on Usenet discussion groups. The purpose is to demonstrate that the FBI has the means, and legal authority, to easily conduct such an operation.

The rationale behind the model is based on its dynamic design. As previously stated, the Bureau probably runs surveillance on virtually all Usenet newsgroups by grouping them into the following three categories: Monitor (read only), Penetrate (read and reply), and Control (read, reply, and post new articles). Most of the surveillance is in the area of monitoring, using resources from the FBI’s existing infrastructure, Tier 4: the clipping service,^* plus informants as needed. A smaller amount of surveillance is penetration and control, areas that require more sophisticated writers. This is probably where the 16 computer squads and the letter writing operation (aka, Crime Records Division) are focused. If the clipping service detects problems in a particular newsgroup, the computer squads are notified and writers are directed to the targeted newsgroup to respond as needed. Informants and agents can post messages on an ad hoc basis.

Figure 4- 2: FBI/Usenet Surveillance Model

People have debated with me whether the Internet police—as I like to call them—are solely FBI or a mix of FBI and military types, plus a few CIA people here and there. It’s only natural that virtually every intelligence agency would have a presence of some sort within the Usenet community, but my research still points to the FBI as the leader—the true sponsor, if you will—of the Internet police. This conclusion is based on four things. First, I have already mentioned that two FBI directors—Freeh and Mueller—have publicly stated that the Bureau has an ongoing Cyberterrorism campaign in place. Second, the FBI has about 11,000 special agents working out of 59 field offices which cover every city, town and village throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.⁹ Third, the FBI has legal authority to use informants within the United States; the CIA does not. Fourth, the FBI has a history of working with Jewish media moguls to monitor virtually all media outlets in America (see Chapter 3). Why would they monitor the traditional media outlets and allow the Usenet to operate freely and openly? Fifth, the FBI’s infrastructure within the United States is dramatically larger and more omnipresent than comparable agencies, like the CIA, for example. The CIA has one central headquarters facility in Langley/McLean, Virginia and a limited number of secret facilities throughout the United States, but nothing that compares with the FBI’s infrastructure.

It’s difficult to make direct comparisons between the FBI and the CIA because most of the CIA’s activities—in the areas of funding and number of employees—are classified, whereas, comparable information about the FBI is not. Having stated that, the CIA’s annual budget is eventually declassified, and consequently, we know that its annual budget is significantly larger than the FBI’s—about $27 billion annually for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, whereas, the FBI’s annual budget for fiscal year 2003 is $4.2 billion.¹⁰ Although the CIA’s annual budget is about six times larger than the FBI’s, the Bureau’s infrastructure within the United States is dramatically larger than the CIA’s. In addition, the FBI has offices in 52 countries outside the United States, operating in parallel with the CIA; however, the CIA presumably has a presence in 192 countries, or something close to that. This would explain why the CIA’s budget is about six times larger than the FBI’s. Within this context, the FBI’s budget is quite bloated.

It is difficult to determine the extent of CIA surveillance on the Usenet, but I have found no evidence to suggest an extensive CIA operation exists. On the other hand, the military appears to have an incestuous relationship with the FBI. For example, FBI agents are trained at Quantico Marine base in Virginia, located about 30 miles south of Washington, DC. In addition, William Sullivan inadvertently disclosed—in his book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI—that FBI employees can transfer directly into the military if the director approves the move. In the following excerpt, Sullivan revealed a great deal about the FBI’s relationship with the military, plus his personal motivations and his feelings about the FBI under Hoover:

Sullivan’s words revealed quite a bit of personal integrity, but he also disclosed an interesting relationship between the FBI and the military. Obviously there is overlap between the two entities, and more research is needed to determine the precise nature of the relationship. But according to Sullivan, the two entities apparently have a transparent relationship which allows FBI people to move laterally to the military if the director approves the move. Consequently, it cannot be ruled out that the US military is part of the FBI’s Usenet surveillance apparatus.

The average American probably assumes the Bureau uses informants to keep tabs on known criminals or people suspected of committing violent crimes. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The FBI uses informants for any reason it wants. I know from personal experience that the Bureau keeps tabs on people like me, whose only offense is criticizing the government. I believe I was targeted because of public statements I made—in the autumn of 1993—about President Kennedy’s murder.^*

About a year ago, I learned that a close friend of mine—Gary David Martin—was actually an FBI informant who had kept tabs on me since the fall of 1993. It is difficult to say, in concrete terms, that Gary worked for the FBI per se, but it became obvious to me and others that he had a hidden agenda. When I confronted him about it, he was apparently startled by my directness and admitted that the FBI had his work phone number, but he refused to discuss it further. On several occasions afterwards, I asked him—via email—to clarify his comment about the FBI having his work number, but he has consistently dodged the question.

Gary presently lives in Chantilly, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC. He was born in 1943 and is about sixty years old (in 2003). He has a Ph.D in economics and worked for years as an economist for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In fact he told me that he and his family actually lived in Puerto Rico for about five years as I recall; he also speaks fluent Spanish. While living in Puerto Rico, Gary likely had an FBI contact at the San Juan field office located at the U.S. Federal Building, 150 Carlos Chardon Avenue, at Room 526, Hato Rey, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1716.^† When Gary moved to the Washington, DC area, he likely reported to someone at the Washington, DC field office located at 601 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20535-0002. The Washington, DC field office is run by Assistant Director in Charge, Michael A. Mason. It is unknown if Gary works directly for Mason, but that is the administrative hierarchy for his geographic region (Washington, DC) per the FBI’s official website.¹²

When I first met Gary, in the fall of 1993, he was still employed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and worked in an office in Northwest Washington, DC. Gary contacted me through one of the newspaper reporters who interviewed me about the Kennedy assassination. "I really liked the article about you," he said. "It’s refreshing to read about someone who believes Kennedy’s assassination was a government conspiracy and Oswald was a patsy." Obviously it’s nice to be complimented, but at first I didn’t trust Gary or particularly like him. He had a rough, pushy, manipulative personality, and a slightly twisted sense of humor. But over time, he did several things to win my confidence. For example, he suggested I write a book about the Kennedy assassination. "Why would I do that?" I asked. "Who would buy it? Who would publish or distribute it? If I tell the truth without compromising about Jewish involvement, it will be tough getting help from anyone."

"It’s important to get everything you know on paper," he replied, "just to crystallize your thinking, if nothing else. You know a lot about this topic. You should write it down in case something happens to you, so others will know." That was a turning point in our friendship. I began to trust him fully after that. But it would be a few years before I took his advice and wrote the book.

Around 1996, Gary claims he was let go from his job with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and spent about two years at home. Eventually he found a job—in 1998, as I recall—working at the Department of Labor in Washington, DC. During his period of unemployment he became interested in the Internet and kept encouraging me to do the same. He wanted me to post my political opinions on various discussion forums. "The country needs you," he used to say. I didn’t start until mid or late 1997, posting regularly on several newsgroups, but it wasn’t until nearly five years later that things began to unravel with Gary. In April 2002 I published the first edition of Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination. Gary was shocked. I realize this now, but at the time he pretended to be supportive, albeit erratic. He informed me that he had posted an article publicizing and endorsing Opium Lords on several Usenet newsgroups, but I was unable to find his article. An acquaintance was also aware of Gary’s claim to have posted a promotional message for Opium Lords on various newsgroups, but the acquaintance—like me—was unable to find Gary’s article as well. I phoned Gary to double-check the name of the article, and he got on the Internet while I was on the phone. Then he seem troubled. "Oh my God," he said. "I can see it clearly from my computer. If you guys can’t see it, then the government must have blocked it somehow. That’s upsetting because they’re allowing me to see what I’ve posted, but no one else can. Things are getting bad if it’s come to this."

I’m ashamed to admit it, but I bought Gary’s explanation at the time, at least I thought he was sincere. Over the years, I have seen strange things occur on the Usenet which pointed to governmental censorship. So at first, Gary’s comments seemed valid. But I became skeptical within the next few weeks. He began saying negative things like, "It’s a waste of time to keep posting things on the Usenet because they’ve got you blocked so no one can read your articles. It’s too bad because you’re writing some great stuff." I was slightly irritated by that because it seemed like he was trying to discourage me from writing altogether. This was the same person who told me, a few years earlier, I should post my opinions on the Usenet because the country needed me. Once my book was published on a website, he changed his tune and seemed to be discouraging me. I didn’t obsess over his change of heart, nor did I consciously think he was trying to silence me, but I was a bit annoyed with his general attitude. Still I trusted him. Shortly afterwards, however, I felt a need to check out his comments. I ran a series of Google searches on various articles I had written and posted recently on Usenet, but I didn’t check them from my home computer; I ran Google searches from computers available at various public libraries. I even ran Google searches from a computer at a library in a West Virginia village. None of my articles were blocked, not even from the backwoods of West Virginia. Gary was wrong, but even so, I still trusted him, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he must have had a glitch in his computer or was technically confused. I didn’t dwell on it, but I politely let Gary know what I had done and he was evidently mistaken. He never suggested the government was blocking my Usenet messages after that.

Gary did several other erratic things, and it is obvious now that he was upset about the book I had written, and the manner in which I had published it. I had published over 400 pages of text on my website without first letting him read it. When he encouraged me to write a book about Kennedy, years earlier, he was thinking in terms of a "paper" book, not an online book, available to millions of people on the Internet. Upon reflection, it is apparent that Gary never considered the possibility of publishing a voluminous, detailed online book about the Kennedy assassination or anything else. And he was probably thinking in terms of a 50 or 100-page report, not a 400-page book. Gary had grossly underestimated the power of the Internet. Also, I made a conscious decision not to let anyone read the book prior to publication because it contained hard-hitting information—namely, the identities of the three French Corsican assassins who killed Kennedy. (Their names were Lucien Sarti, François Chiappe, and Jean-Paul Angeletti.) I felt it was safer to release the book to the world suddenly, without allowing anyone to preview its contents. Over the next few months (from April through August 2002) my friendship with Gary began to deteriorate, and his actions became more erratic, although I continued to trust him.

Although Gary fooled me and others for nine years, he wasn’t a very good informant. He had a bad habit disclosing too much information, the sort of things his handlers certainly did not want him to reveal. A good example is when he accidentally told me the FBI had his work phone number. But the thing that caused me to break ties with Gary was when he gave my work phone number to two individuals—on August 19, 2002—as a means of intimidating me. These two individuals—Patrick Knowlton and Hugh Turley^*—were angry with me because of a political discussion I was moderating on my website. Knowlton and Turley certainly had no business calling me at work. In addition to disclosing personal information to my enemies, Gary lost his temper, screaming obscenities at me over the phone at the top of his lungs. My offense was asking Hugh Turley several sensitive questions on a discussion forum on my website.

"Get that fucking thing down! Get it down!" Gary shouted over the phone at the top of his lungs. He wanted me to take down my discussion page with Hugh Turley. He had called me at work on Monday morning, in a rage and was fit to be tied. I managed to calm him down, but refused to be intimidated by him or anyone else. After hanging up on him, I noticed I had a voice message—on my work telephone line—from Patrick Knowlton. Gary had obviously given it to him. I was livid. I called Gary at his office and confronted him about giving my work number to someone who was angry with me over an Internet discussion.

"I just got a voice message from Patrick Knowlton while we were talking," I explained. "Did you give him my work number?"

"I gave it to Hugh Turley," he relied.

"Why would you give it to Turley?" I asked.

"Because he asked me for it," he replied.

"You gave my work number to someone who is upset with me about something I wrote on the Internet," I explained. "How would you like it if I gave your work number to an FBI agent?"

Obviously startled, Gary replied: "The FBI already has my work number. So does Reed Irvine."

Things became clear to me at that point. "Gary, I get the impression there’s something more going on here. Is there something you need to tell me?"

Realizing he’d blown his cover, he became extremely belligerent. "Yeah, there is. You’re crazy!" He was incredibly nasty at that point. He acted like a spoiled child being disciplined for the first time in his life.

Gary’s admission about the FBI and Reed Irvine having his work number revealed quite a bit about his true agenda. Reed Irvine is head of the right-wing organization Accuracy in Media (AIM). Both Irvine and AIM had become the topic of a heated debate in the previously mentioned discussion I was moderating on my website. Obviously Gary was on friendly terms with the FBI and Irvine, which explains why they had his work number. Gary became highly agitated because I asked several sensitive questions—in a public discussion forum—about the death of deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster, Jr^* and AIM’s efforts to suppress critical details about the crime while using hyperbole generated from the scandal to smear President Clinton. The Foster case had been Gary’s pet project and I was familiar with it mainly because of my association with him. In a nutshell, Gary, Knowlton, and Turley became extremely upset because I made the following discoveries, which were made public:

• Reed Irvine financed an harassment law suit filed against the United States Government by Patrick Knowlton, a crime scene witness in the Foster case. Irvine illegally used money from Accuracy in Media—a 501c(3) tax exempt organization, which he founded and is president—to fund Knowlton’s suit. I proved this by obtaining AIM’s tax returns which reveal $59,000 was paid by AIM, between 1998 and 2000. AIM’s tax returns show expenses under the heading of "Vince Foster Legal Expense."
• Prior to Foster’s death, Patrick Knowlton was employed as chief of security at the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, DC.¹³ The Saudi Ambassador's residence was within 570 feet from the spot where Foster's body was found,¹⁴ a fact that should have made Knowlton a prime suspect as Foster’s murderer.
• Foster’s death occurred while secret meetings were underway between Israel and the PLO. These meetings led to the Oslo Accords. The secret meetings occurred from April through August 1993 in Norway. As previously stated, Foster died on July 20, 1993, while the secret meetings were in progress.
• On September 13, 1993 President Clinton hosted a signing ceremony for the Oslo Accords at the White House. The ceremony was attended by all interested parties including Yasser Arafat, who was—until then—persona non grata in the United States.¹⁵ Per the accords, Israel recognized the PLO and agreed to gradually implement limited self-rule for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.¹⁶ The Accords specifically stated that UN Resolutions 242 and 338 would finally be implemented. The future seemed bright, but hopes of peace slowly evaporated as events unfolded.
• An anti-Clinton campaign began around the time the Oslo Accords were announced, in the autumn of 1993. Key members of the anti-Clinton campaign were Reverend Jerry Falwell and the Christian Right, Kenneth Starr, and Reed Irvine. All three individuals are fervent Zionists. Starr is an Evangelical Christian but his wife and children are Jewish.

Again, I cannot prove absolutely that Gary David Martin was an FBI informant, but his behavior certainly had all the earmarks. In addition, he came fairly close to confessing that he worked for the Bureau when he stated that the FBI had his work phone number. Knowing Gary the way I did, I suspect he manipulated the FBI—in order to make money as an informant—by molding me into someone the FBI would be interested in monitoring. He knew I was interested in the Kennedy assassination so he encouraged me to write a book on that topic. Then he likely went back to his FBI contacts and said something like this: "We’ve got to keep tabs on this Salvador Astucia character. He’s writing a book about JFK’s assassination and he’s getting some inside information somehow. He’s a smart guy and we need to keep someone on him to prevent him from discovering much more information." Of course Gary would never tell his FBI contacts that he encouraged me to write the book in the first place.

The FBI is apparently overloaded with carpetbaggers who exaggerate an individual’s threat to America’s welfare in order to line their pockets. The following is William Sullivan’s description—from his book, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI—of informants like Gary who played both ends against the middle:

Sullivan’s description of troublesome informants sounds a lot like my old friend Gary Martin.

I have observed that people loyal to the FBI often blame things on the CIA at the drop of a hat. On numerous occasions I have posted comments critical of the FBI on Usenet discussion forums. Frequently people agree with me but quickly shift blame to the CIA without providing evidence. Such conduct has a historical basis within the Bureau. According to William Sullivan, J. Edgar Hoover detested the CIA and he loathed President Truman for creating the agency in 1947. I am certainly not an advocate for the CIA, and I believe America and the world in general would be bettered served if the United States would play a more positive role in world affairs, and be less paranoid about sinister forces trying to destroy our culture. I believe America’s present obsession with military strength and spy agencies inevitably leads to greed, opportunistic profiteering from unnecessary production of weapons of war, and power struggles amongst competing spy and military organizations. Having stated that, I also believe the CIA may have been established for somewhat altruistic reasons: to prevent Hoover from expanding the FBI into international intelligence gathering. Consequently, Hoover rarely cooperated with the CIA unless forced to do so, and he frequently blamed the Bureau’s misconduct on the CIA. Oddly, Hoover disliked President Franklin D. Roosevelt as well, even though it was FDR who expanded the Bureau’s charter to the area of national security in addition to criminal investigations. The following is Sullivan’s description of Hoover’s contempt for FDR, Truman, and the CIA:

Many people incorrectly assume the FBI and the CIA work jointly as a team, but history reveals a more tempestuous relationship between the two agencies.

As previously stated, in the spring of 2003, I began posting articles about John Lennon’s murder on a Usenet discussion group, rec.music.beatles. I observed several people on this newsgroup—who acted like Beatles fans, but clearly attempted to suppress my findings and discredit me. These individuals were acting as Internet Police and they used counterintelligence, a spy technique used by the FBI and other intelligence agencies against the Soviet Union (and vice-versa) during the Cold War. With counterintelligence, a spy joins the opposition’s team in order to gain inside information. To win the opposition’s confidence, the spy often feeds them information, sometimes classified. Gary Martin used counterintelligence techniques when he pretended to be interested in the Kennedy assassination as a means of winning my trust and getting me to reveal my cards about my political opinions and activities. In Gary’s world, I was the enemy, and he joined my team but secretly fed information about me to his FBI handlers. In fact, Gary gave me lots of sensitive information in order to win my confidence. That’s the essence of counterintelligence, it’s all a con game. It was Gary who first told me that Reed Irvine and AIM financed Patrick Knowlton’s harassment law suit against the United States government. "Doesn’t it bother you?" I recall asking him. "AIM is a right-wing Zionist organization. Michael Collins Piper^* claims AIM is funded by Israel. Doesn’t it trouble you that a group that might be connected directly to Israel is funding Knowlton’s law suit?" "Of course it does," Gary replied. "But I haven’t worked it all out in my mind yet." I’ve got to give him credit, that was a good response.

I believe the FBI uses counterintelligence techniques on Usenet discussion forums, just like they did during the Cold War; however, the Bureau’s opposition is no longer the Soviet Union. The opposition is the American public—specifically people who post controversial articles on various discussion groups.

Susan claims she is about forty, has a degree in psychology but makes eight dollars and seventy-four cents an hour working twelve hour days every day including weekends. She repeated her working status several times, although she did not specify her precise employment. Overall, Susan’s story does not seem believable. Her interest in the Beatles is lukewarm, yet she finds time to read and post messages to a Beatles newsgroup after coming home from a twelve-hour workday. I asked Susan several questions about Charlie Gauger because an unnamed individual had emailed me information which suggested he was not your typical Beatles fan and perhaps had ulterior motives. The following is a transcript of the interview with Susan:

I turned the tape recorder off and Susan began to speak more openly about Charlie Gauger. She said he had helped her out a few times when she was having difficulties in her personal life, but she refused to elaborate on how he helped her. She made it clear, however, that her loyalty to him is quite strong, because he is friendly on a personal level. I advised her that most of the more effective scoundrels are people who are friendly on a personal level. That’s how they get things done.

After speaking with Susan, my conclusion of her is the same. There is little doubt that she is a tool used by the FBI. I suspect she is motivated by money, that she makes low wages as she claims, but she picks up extra money by working for Charlie Gauger. At one point in our discussion, I began to think she was being manipulated and was unaware of her involvement with the FBI, but she did two things that pointed to FBI training and loyalty. First, she continued to defend J. Edgar Hoover against my light-hearted remarks about him being homosexual. She tried to deflect my comments as homophobic claiming I was attacking all gays, not just Hoover. Second, she was quick to shift blame to the CIA for John Lennon’s murder. I think that’s something all FBI agents and informants are trained to do because the FBI wants to take over the CIA’s international charter.

Suspicious characters on the Usenet

Gauger uses several aliases, his most recognized screen name being "Mister Charlie;" however, I suspect he uses the following screen names as well: salvadordolly@butterfly.net, dnafbi@aol.com (DNA FBI), Shemp richard_hell@excite.com.

When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in early 1998, Heizer pushed for impeachment early on. In fact he publicly asked people to take the following pledge as a loyalty oath:

Someone once sent Heizer a private email which he didn’t like. He responded by publicly insinuating his wife was Jewish, comparing the email to Nazi persecution of Jews. Heizer made the following statement:

McAdams definitely operates in the "control" mode of Usenet surveillance. He is a scholarly opinion leader with a Ph.D. from Harvard and runs his own website devoted to pushing the government’s position that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin who killed President Kennedy. McAdams’ website is similar to the Warren Report wherein it provides a wealth of information that could easily support either a conspiracy thesis or the government’s lone assassin scenario; however, the lone assassin conclusion is obviously reached because it is pre-determined. As a scholar, McAdams is apparently unwilling to provide erroneous information, although he doesn’t mind putting a pro-government spin on the big picture. For example, he has an Oswald page which begins by quoting William Manchester who provides an intellectual rationalization for why the public yearns for conspiracy theories. Here is the quote:

Manchester’s argument does not match the American mindset at all. From my observation, the biggest flaw in the collective American psyche—particularly white Gentiles—is their yearning to see the brighter things in life, constantly ignoring the dark forces. The American public generally accepts whatever the government tells them, particularly on matters of state, and it takes a great deal of work by researchers, scholars and writers to change their minds. Manchester’s view that the American public needs to believe in conspiracies for psychological fulfillment is propaganda at its worst.

I have looked at a fair amount of McAdams’ material, and his facts—as opposed to his conclusions—are generally reliable, as far as I can determine. He’s too sophisticated to openly lie or provide fraudulent evidence to support is argument. Not only would that be dishonest, it would be unwise because he would lose credibility quickly if caught lying. Consequently, I use some of his data from time to time when discussing various aspects of the Kennedy assassination, just as I use data from the Warren Report occasionally.

McAdams is likely affiliated with Milwaukee’s FBI field office which—according to the FBI’s official website—covers all towns, cities and counties in Wisconsin. The Milwaukee field office is located at 330 E. Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 600, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, and is run by Special Agent in Charge David B. Mitchell and assistant SAC, Jeffrey L. Troy.³³ It is unknown if McAdams works directly for the stated SACs, but is likely acquainted with them or their colleagues.

McAdams teaches American Politics, Public Opinion, and Voter Behavior, and has taught at the Kennedy School of Government. Research interests include Congressional elections, social class and politics, the New Class and the death penalty. Publications include articles in various journals including American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Sociological Quarterly and Law and Contemporary Problems.³⁴

It is not absolutely certain whether Parody Nation or the Daily Hog are funded by the FBI, but they need to get money somewhere. Parady Nation, in particular, has an elaborate website to maintain, plus employees like Web to pay. After a minute's worth of browsing through Parody Nation, one can quickly surmise that its management is not driven by altruism; they are not running the journal as a public service. Although Web’s intellect is obviously average to low, he is probably classified by the Bureau as someone who operates in "control" mode surveillance because his articles appear on several websites. Technically that makes him an opinion leader, although he constantly discredits himself with his filthy language and obsession with sexual perversion. Web likely reports to an agent who works out of the Milwaukee office. Web’s age is unknown.

In Chapter 2 of this book, I claimed that Lennon’s murder in 1980 was probably connected with the Holocaust propaganda campaign which began in 1978 with the TV mini-series, The Holocaust, directed by Marvin Chomsky, starring Meryl Streep and James Woods. Before 1978, the term Holocaust was not associated with Nazi Germany and Jews. I stated that the word Holocaust—as a description of events associated with Jews in Nazi Germany—was introduced to the American public through the renowned 1978 TV mini-series. When I posted that assertion on rec.music.beatles, Richards began quibbling ad nauseam over the definition of word holocaust proper, implying that I claimed the word itself did not exist prior to 1978—a blatant lie. The following is Richards’ comments about the word holocaust:

Richards is primarily a noise-maker and a bit of a bully. He is physically obese and his age is unknown. He usually uses a screen name which includes the word "Ryno." They include the following: Rynosseros, The Untouchable (avoiding.yucky.email@eotworld.com), The Man From R.Y.N.O, Sekrit Agent (no.want.no.mail@eotworld.com), Comte de Bugtussle et Montemerde (scarcely.found@Eotworld.com).

Hammond’s overall approach is to act superior, to intellectualize and pontificate the Beatles music. Rather than directly insult people who post objectionable material, Hammond tries to intimidate them by making high-brow musical commentary. Often it backfires—as previously stated—and he reveals a painfully limited degree of knowledge about the Beatles’ music. For example, I remarked—in a thread called "Beatle recordings: Which had the best piano parts??"—that I thought "In My Life" had the best piano part. Hammond began quibbling over the song itself, something considered sacrilegious amongst most Beatles fans. Hammond apparently did not realize that criticizing "In My Life" to Beatle fans is like criticizing "How Great Thou Art" to a room full of Christians. Hammond’s ignorance in this area gave him great confidence. He claimed "Piggies" and "Baby You're a Rich Man" are better tunes than "In My Life," a point of view that is truly laughable. "In My Life" is considered a bona fide work of genius in the Beatle world, whereas, "Piggies" and "Baby You’re a Rich Man" are viewed as mediocre throwaways. Yet Hammond spoke with such conviction that "In My Life" is inferior. This is what he said:

Hammond was trying to discredit me, but his lack of knowledge of Beatles music made him look like a fool when he criticized "In My Life." It’s one thing to voice an opinion different from others, but if you present yourself as an expert in a particular field, and you make casual comments that are completely out of step with the views of your peers, and if you make such assertions without attempting to explain or justify why you hold such unconventional opinions, then you discredit yourself as an expert in your field. Holding an unusual opinion is not self-discrediting per se, but not realizing that an opinion is unusual or provocative reveals a lack of enlightenment. When I publicly brought it to Hammond’s attention that he was not merely criticizing me, but he also criticizing one of Lennon’s greatest works, he quickly backed down.

Hammond reportedly owns http://www.beethoven.com under the business name of Marlin Broadcasting, LLC. Marlin Broadcasting also owns and operates radio stations WCCC-FM and WTMI-AM in Hartford, CT and WBOQ-FM in Gloucester, MA. Hammond is also a photographer for Fantasya. (http://www.fantasya.net )³⁹ Given Hammond’s vast holdings and his affiliation with various websites, he definitely operates in the "control" mode of Usenet surveillance; he is an opinion leader. Hammond is believed to about 50 years of age and goes by the nickname Paramucho.

I believe all of these individuals (Susan from York, PA, Charlie Gauger, Ray Heizer, Michael Osmalov, John McAdams, John Web, Len Richards, and Ian Hammond) are typical FBI informants who clutter the Usenet aggressively trying to silence all independent voices. Their tactics may vary from high-brow intellectualism to juvenile personal insults. Regardless of the techniques they use, their message is uniform: Do not express any opinions which stray from government endorsed opinions. Do not question John Lennon’s murder, do not question the Warren Report,^* do not question the authority of the FBI or Israel. Public discussions in these and similar areas will certainly ignite bitter responses from the Internet police, the FBI’s mercenary army which guards the flow of information on the Usenet. All at the expense of the American tax payer.

On May 10, 2003, I started a discussion thread entitled Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination on rec.music.beatles. The following is an excerpt from the original message:

The reaction was large, about 80 messages total—per Google—within a few days. Comments were a mix of vitriolic attacks and a few defenders of my efforts. Someone calling himself Willie Nelson wrote: "Take your crap elsewhere you spamming creep." Sean Carroll quickly defended me. "How exactly was that 'spam'?" Sean asked. "And as far as taking it elsewhere, where exactly do you think would be a more on-topic place for something about John Lennon's murder than a Beatles newsgroup?" Five sample messages in the cited discussion thread are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 1 through 5.)

On May 23, 2003, I started a discussion thread on rec.music.beatles entitled John Lennon's Murder - Rare photos of crime scene. The following is an excerpt from the original message:

The reaction was substantially less than the previous discussion thread, about 16 messages total—per Google—within a few days. Several messages were vitriolic attacks on me, often vulgar, but a few people defended me to a limited extent. For example, Derek Larsson generally supported me, but was bothered by my criticism of Jewish political forces and related topics. "I think you seriously discredit yourself," Derek advised, "with all that wild stuff and ranting in there about Jews and Hitler and Jews and Christians, etc. and suggest that you delete this from your presentation." Someone called "Sixties Gen" concurred with Derek’s sentiment. "It's unfortunate that this Salvador character is an anti-Semite, and Holocaust denier, otherwise he would have more credibility. The questions he raises about Lennon's assassination are valid, and deserve more scrutiny...I think that Salvador is correct that there may have been a plan to eliminate John. I don't think his idea as to how it happened is accurate. I tend to favor the 'Manchurian Candidate' aspect." Dale Houstman made the following critical remark: "The fact that [Salvador] is an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier merely ‘diminishes’ his story in your eyes? What would he have to do to completely banish himself from your consideration: kill and eat a woman in the Rose Garden?" Someone called the "Sheriff of Honk Honk" wrote: "Piss off asshole." Eight sample messages in the cited discussion thread are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 6 through 13.)

On May 29, 2003, I started a discussion thread on rec.music.beatles entitled Why ‘A Day in the Life’ was banned by BBC Radio. The following is an excerpt from the original message:

The reaction was large, about 84 messages total—per Google—within a few days. Comments were almost all vitriolic, personal attacks on me. Someone calling himself "Shemp" wrote: "Oh of course. Now I see the whole picture. You are in fact a neo-fascist. Have you had tea with Herr von Ribbentrop lately? Have you shattered any windows lately? You are ignorant my friend. Just plainly ignorant. It is your kind that caused the Holocaust, but you don't believe in that, right? You'd better get wise to yourself palsy." Someone called "Black Monk" wrote: "Fuck off, you idiot scumbag...Piss off. No one here buys your idiotic, bigoted bullshit." Stephen Carter accused me of being Holocaust revisionist David Irving: "Actually it's probably David Irvine writing under another name!" [Carter misspelled Irving's name.] Someone named "UsurperTom" wrote: "It would be better if we ignored this insidious troll. Replying to him only gives him the attention that he wants." Someone named "Tna Yzarc" wrote: "Hey Len [Richards, aka Ryno], don't bother with this low life asshole, mate." Len Richards (aka, Ryno) wrote: "I'm more concerned with making sure Saliva-drool doesn't spread any more of his 'look what the goose stepped in' neo-nazi shite. The rest gets more petty than Tom and the Heartbreakers." Black Monk replied to Len Richards (aka Ryno): "Thank you. I'm glad someone realizes what's important. Most flame wars aren't, including the other ones that I'm currently involved in. This is." Thirty-three sample messages in the cited discussion thread are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 14 through 46.)

On June 5, 2003, I started a discussion thread on rec.music.beatles entitled Was ‘How I Won the War’ pro-Nazi? The following is an excerpt from the original message:

The reaction was fairly large, about 45 messages total—per Google—within a few days. As expected, most of the messages were vitriolic, personal attacks on me. For example, Willie Nelson wrote: "Why are you here? Surely there is a more proper newsgroup for your twisted conspiracy bullshit. alt.anti-semite or something. Get lost." Nine sample messages in the cited discussion thread are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 47 through 55.)

On June 17, 2003, I started a discussion thread on rec.music.beatles entitled Jose Perdomo, doorman or security guard[?], a spin-off from another discussion between Derek Larsson and someone named Cromwell. In the initial message, I responded to both of them about Perdomo’s possible involvement in Lennon’s murder. Here is an excerpt from the original message:

The Perdomo thread got a sudden and viscous response, an odd reaction considering the seemingly passive topic. Tna Yzarc retitled the thread "Salvatorwriter, asshole, bumboy, neo-nazi or security guard?" I responded by changing it back to the original title and recited the poem If by Rudyard Kipling. Tna Yzarc retitled it "Salvadorwriter, moron or murderer?" I continued changing the title back and reciting If a bit more. Tna Yzarc changed the titled to "Salvadorwriter FUCK OFF AND STOP SPAMMING YOU ASSHOLE." Tna Yzarc then wrote the following extremely vulgar comment: "I think you're a pathetic stupid cunt and you should go back to fucking your mom." Someone named Jim sarcastically wrote, "Wow - what a CLEVER response!!" Black Monk replied, "You think Sally deserves better?" Charlie Gauger (aka, Mister Charlie) remarked, "Hey, it works for me." Susan added, "A bit crude, but it works." Charlie Gauger (aka, Mister Charlie) added the following insults: "Of course, like a dog returning to its own vomit Sal comes back yet again." Someone called "Ehtue" complimented Charlie Gauger on his word choice: "What a turn of phrase! I'll steal that one for sure some time in the future! Somewhere, somehow." It is difficult to determine the total number of messages because people kept changing the title of the thread so many times. As far as I can determine there appears to be about 25 messages total, per Google. Fourteen sample messages in the cited discussion thread are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 56 through 69.)

On June 27, 2003, I started a discussion thread on rec.music.beatles entitled Police report for John Lennon's murder now available online. The following is an excerpt from the original message:

The reaction was fairly small, about 16 messages total—per Google—within a few days. Again, most were sarcastic and insulting. Teddy (of "Hennessy & Co") wrote: "I had a look at your website. What a load of crap. And you can quote me on that." Shemp wrote: "Hi Sally Nutsack! Your website is a piece of poop. I expect Mr. Hankey will show up soon. You can quote me on this." Five sample messages in the cited discussion thread are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 70 through 74.)

On August 5, 2003, I started a discussion thread on rec.music.beatles entitled NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report. The following is an excerpt from the original message:

The reaction was moderate, about 33 messages total—per Google—within a few days, but in many ways this was the most devastating article of all. My criticism of the NYC medical examiner’s office ignited a vindictive campaign to learn and publicize my true identity and label me an anti-Semite, a Nazi, a racist, a Holocaust denier, you name it. I even received a letter in my mailbox containing a picture of rat. There was no return address but the postmark was from Australia.

The responses to the article on rec.music.beatles were more subdued than the letter from Australia (which I presume was sent by Len Richards). Teddy (of "Hennessy & Co) wrote: "John is dead. He will be dead whether the examiner releases the report, keeps it on file or makes a paper airplane out of it." Steven Wandy wrote: "I happen to be a licensed Funeral Director in NYC and autopsy reports are NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. They are only released to the police (in the case of a homicide), the members of the deceased family or his/her estate. THAT IS ALLTHAT GET TO SEE THEM." Susan remarked: "And that's all that should be allowed to see them." Frankly, I was skeptical of Wandy’s claim that he was a licensed Funeral Director in NYC. I have seen too many shady characters on the Usenet to accept such an assertion at face value. Still, it was possible he was telling the truth. I replied as follows:

Teddy (of "Hennessy & Co) replied to my message to Wandy: "Oh, c'mon, Sally, don't be shy. Just come on out and say it. You're a bigot and you hate Jews...Amazing how [Salvador] stamps his little feet when NYC just won't go along with his conspiracy theories." Someone named "Brilton" mocked my request with a page full of "ha ha ha" plus several vulgarities. Fifteen sample messages in the cited discussion thread are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 75 through 89.)

Wandy ignored my request that he authenticate his claim of being a licensed NYC funeral director, so I decided to apply some pressure. On August 6, 2003, I started a discussion thread on rec.music.beatles entitled Steven Wandy, the fraud (?). The following is text of the original message:

The reaction was small, about 11 messages total—per Google—within a few days. Needless to say, several comments were insulting. Someone cloned my name and wrote: "Who are you to demand credentials from others when you don't even use your own real name, Jew hating astute savior?" Steven Wandy wrote:

I called Wandy’s bluff and publicly asked him to post the stated JPEG file, but to date, the JPEG has never been produced. Wandy was obviously a fraud as I suspected. I received positive comments from Frank from Detroit; he wrote:

Six sample messages in the cited discussion thread are provided in Appendix K. (See messages 90 through 95.)

Within a month after my initial posting to rec.music.beatles, it became obvious that an orchestrated surveillance apparatus was in place, trying to suppress meaningful dialogue about John Lennon’s murder. Like most Usenet discussion groups there were a handful of regulars who aggressively kept discussions within certain boundaries. To force them to surface, I made a list of names of people I suspected worked for the FBI, or similar groups, based on their unruly behavior. On June 3, 2003, I started a discussion thread on rec.music.beatles, entitled FBI informants, which listed their names. The message was short but direct: "A word of warning to regulars on rec.music.beatles. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING. Keep an eye on these guys." Then I listed the names. The reaction was fairly large, about 69 messages total—per Google—within a few days. Needless to say, most of the comments silly, insulting, and unworthy of repeating here. On August 4, 2003, I started a similar discussion thread entitled Top 10 FBI Informants on this newsgroup. It contained a few additional names, but was essentially the same list. The reaction was not as big as the first, about 44 messages total—per Google—within a few days. After that I would post an updated list every time I spotted another troublemaker who seemed to be more than a kook. Each revision was numbered, 2^nd revision, 3^rd revision, and so on. On August 20, 2003, I published the most recent list to date on a thread entitled FBI Informants on R.M.B. - 11th rev. The reaction was medium, about 42 messages total—per Google—within a few days. My original postings for these three threads are provided in Appendix K; however, none of the replies are included because they are extremely juvenile and meaningless. (See messages 96 through 98.)

The Usenet offers great possibilities for people to exchange ideas, but as long as the FBI has carte blanche legal authority to run surveillance, to pay informants to post vitriolic public messages to people who voice unpopular or controversial opinions, then all Americans suffer; mankind suffers.