Update no.661

Update from the Heartland

No.661

11.8.14 – 17.8.14

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

The follow-up news items:

-- The TWA Flight 800 incident [17.July.1996] remains an event of continuing and apparently perpetual interest to more than a few of us [102-4, 115, 115A, 122, 125, 140, 147, 150-1, 154, 168, 171, 222-3, 235, 240, 245, 268, 269, 272, 281, 290, 332, 345, 443, 601-2, 639, 655, 657, 661].  Dr. Tom Stalcup, PhD (physics), has been a stalwart, consistent and insightful critic of the government’s public investigation of the incident.  I missed his latest effort circa the 18^th anniversary, so I note it in this week’s Update for those who remain concerned about the government’s investigation.  Please watch this video-clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyluFVxqBlo&app=desktop

A reminder: to my knowledge, there has never been any question regarding what happened during the ground preparation, taxi and takeoff of TWA Flight 800, or what happened to the aircraft after the fuel-air vapor ignited in the Center Wing Tank (CWT), if we exclude the debate over the so-called “zoom climb,” used to discredit further discredit the CIA video.  The sole issue has been and remains: what caused the ignition of the combustible atmosphere in the CWT that evening.  The total exclusion of eyewitness data from the official NTSB investigation persists as a near extraordinary hole in the government’s investigation.  We relied upon fragmentary, incomplete information from Press reports and a few witness statements obtained from the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office, which would be considered at best raw data, as there is no correlation to other factual data associated with the event timeline or corroboration assessments; that information was sufficient to convince me something was not correct with respect to the government’s public statements.  As Tom notes quite effectively, the government relies heavily on a CIA-produced animation to disengage the FBI and deflect, diminished or discount the undisclosed eyewitness information.  To this date, We, the People, have never received an explanation, rationale or justification for the denial of eyewitness data, which in turn raises significant suspicions regarding the integrity of the investigation.  Tom has worked tirelessly to connect with some of the eyewitnesses who have come forward or been identified, and has attempted to correlate their information with the event timeline.  That said, it is essential to note, as every accident investigator can testify, eyewitness information is rarely accurate and is often misleading, yet the collective body usually offers valuable “coloring” to the technical analysis and the process of connecting the dots to paint the picture of what happened.  In the case of the TWA Flight 800 incident, we are denied that important information, especially since the aircraft data gives us no information as to what was occurring exterior to the aircraft.  Perhaps, the USG wants to maintain the comfort of their position – trust us, there is nothing relevant in the eyewitness data as illuminated by the CIA animation video.  The 20-year mark is approaching, and I expect the missing Eyewitness Group report and the associated data to be publicly released and subjected to critical public scrutiny.  We may not gain access to the military and intelligence data until the 50-year mark, but it will eventually become public as well.  Until then, I urge you to attentively watch Tom’s latest video debunking the CIA animation video.

My evolving opinion of the violence in Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis, has fluctuated wildly as events transpired subsequent to Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, 28, shooting and killing Michael Brown, 18, who was apparently unarmed, although a rather large man.  The events leading to the fatal, Saturday, 9.August confrontation remain far too confusing and uncertain for a clear view.  The publicly available information suggests Officer Wilson escalated the confrontation quickly and for unknown reasons.  The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been called in to conduct a separate, independent investigation, to determine whether federal law(s) may have been violated.  Missouri Governor Jay Nixon deployed the state police to supervise policing in Ferguson and later declared a state of emergency.  At this stage, I am confident the investigators will sort out what happen leading up to the fatal shooting.  I comment today out of blooming anger over the ambulance chaser opportunists who always show up to stoke the smoldering embers of perceived injustice.  They thrive on generating what must be called mobs with essentially no control or order.  Of course, anarchists, hooligans and criminals are attracted to such crowds to degenerate and unravel what moral fabric may exist among the local protesters and populace. Then, we have looting, thievery, property damage and random violence. The bad actors use “protest” crowds as cover for their violence and destruction, just as Islamofascists use innocent citizens for cover.  The initiating event was bad enough.  What happened afterward is far worse, in my humble opinion.  Saner minds should have prevailed in the volatile environment.  Unfortunately, once again, those opportunists who apparently are far more driven by the perceived solidarity of the “protests” than they are about public safety or the plight of the local population disappoint us.  It appears recent events are meant to achieve chaos as a public price to pay rather than a demonstration about injustice.  I look forward to the day we no longer have to endure their ilk.  This has got to stop!

Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the narrow 5-4 majority in the rather odd-duck, Second Amendment case of Abramski v. United States [573 U.S. ___ (2014); no. 12–1493].  The Court’s decision is not so much about the Second Amendment, other than it involves the sale of firearms.  It is more about a straw purchaser making a false statement during the requirement background check process involved in the sale of a pistol from a federally licensed firearms dealer.   The whole case boils down to a yes-no response on ATF Form 4473 – Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over-the-Counter, specifically, Question 11a, which asks:

“Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Instructions for Question 11.a.) Exception: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.”

[bold & italics as shown on Form 4473]. 

In this instance, Bruce Abramski offered to buy a Glock 19, 9x19mm, semi-automatic pistol for his uncle, Angel Alvarez.  Abramski was a former police officer who thought he could obtain a discount on the purchase for his uncle by using his no longer valid police identification credential.  Although not stated anywhere in the ruling, I suspect it was Abramski’s attempt to obtain a discount with a false police identification that actually flagged the sale in the first place.  Nonetheless, Abramski answered “Yes” to Question 11a, when he knew he was purchasing the pistol for his uncle, and he received a check from his uncle, which he promptly cashed.  Thus, according to the majority, Abramski violated 18 USC § 922(a)(6) {Gun Control Act of 1968 (AKA GCA or GCA68) [PL 90-618; 82 Stat. 1213, 1218; 22.10.1968]}.  The law was intended to prevent the transfer of firearms to unauthorized or prohibited individuals or organizations.  Neither Abramski nor Uncle Angel Alvarez were in any of the specified groups, thus both qualified as legal purchasers; however, it was Abramski’s answer to Question 11a and the Court’s very strict interpretation of “actual buyer” that generated this case in Richmond, Virginia, through the federal courts to the Supreme Court.  Kagan noted, “Abramski thwarted application of essentially all of the firearms law's requirements.  We can hardly think of a misrepresentation any more material to a sale's legality.”  She did add, “Alvarez could have [legally] bought a gun for himself.”  Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the dissent and concluded, “The Court makes it a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner. Whether or not that is a sensible result, the statutes Congress enacted do not support it--especially when, as is appropriate, we resolve ambiguity in those statutes in favor of the accused.”

            To me, this ruling represents precisely the most basic fear of law-abiding citizens, regarding the application of firearms laws.  Both the majority and the dissent acknowledged the congressional intent of the GCA68 was expressly to keep firearms out of the hands of:

1.  felons

2.  fugitives from justice

3.  controlled substance users and addicts

4.  mentally ill

5.  illegal aliens

6.  citizens dishonorably discharged from the military

7.  citizens who have renounced their citizenship

8.  citizens subject to specified court orders

9.  those convicted of domestic violence or trafficking in firearms

[summarized from 18 USC §922(g).]

The GCA68 law and subsequent revisions did not address straw purchases for citizens not identified in 18 USC §922(g).  Yet, in the hands of zealous law enforcement and prosecutors, this is what we get – a very broad dragnet that will undoubtedly make criminals of innocent, peaceful, law-abiding citizens.  Now, thanks to the Abramski ruling, it is illegal to gift a pistol or any other firearm to another lawful citizen, even a spouse or other family member.  If I had been in Abramski’s position and purchasing a small-caliber pistol for my wife, I probably would have answered “yes” to Question 11a as well, even though the pistol was intended for my wife.

            That said, I must note for the record, I could easily and readily argue this case from either side – it is that marginal.  Yet, ultimately, I think the Court got it wrong in that they have now allowed the prosecutorial net to be cast far too broadly beyond the intent of Congress.

News from the economic front:

-- The eurozone’s largest economy, Germany, contracted by 0.2% in 2Q2014, while the zone’s second largest economy, France, remained stagnant (0.0%) in the same period.  The disappointing results probably reflect the consequences of the continuing unrest in Eastern Ukraine and doubts about the region’s capacity to recovery from the Great Recession.

Comments and contributions from Update no.660:

“Goodness Cap a novel size update!

“Wars with the French, Trafalgar and Nelson 1815/ 65million years ago and the tribes, no we were still wallowing in the slime pits then surely?

“However a good read mate from a windy and cooler Suffolk U/K.”

My reply:

            LOL.  These things happen . . . a very long thread in the Comments section bulked up last week’s Update.

            I was suggesting we could use many examples of protracted conflict . . . between the British & French at least back to 1337, and indeed Napoleon was finally beaten by the troops of the Duke of Wellington and surrendered a month later aboard HMS Bellérophon in 1815 . . . nearly 500 years of conflict.  The 65M years milestone is a time frame when primates appeared on Earth and formed tribes for protection and survival.  I suppose the last one was a bit of a stretch.  I don’t have a marker for the slime pit, but I might suggest that might go back 400M to 4B years ago.  OK, let us use 50K years ago when anatomical homo sapiens sapiens began to dominate Earth.  Regardless, humans have been fighting for one reason or another for a very long time, so the Palestinian-Israeli tussle is quite young by comparison.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“But yes we are, us homo sapiens a war like species as we have proven so many times.

“Let’s look forward to peace in Gaza.”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            Re: homo sapiens.  Indeed!  Perhaps someday, we shall out grow our propensity for violence and mature as a species.

            Re: Gaza.  I’m with you my friend.

Another contribution:

“From Colonel Pat Lang’s blog…not that much in the U.S. media about this in the moving into the Green Zone of mostly pro-Shia troops:

“Inkilab 'Askari (Coup d'Etat) in Baghdad?

“It appears that a putsch against the constitutional government of Iraq is underway in Baghdad.  This seems to be on behalf of Nuri al-Maliki and against the newly elected Sunni Arab president of the country and the parliament.  Maliki has been under great pressure from the U.S. to leave office because it has been thought that he has largely been responsible for the alienation of many of Iraq's Sunni Arab population.  He is said to have done this by oppressing that population as a means of advancing the interests of his own group, the Shia Arabs.

“An alternative narrative of what is occurring is Maliki's claim that he is protecting the city against someone else's coup. 

“According to early reports large numbers of Ministry of Interior police troops (overwhelmingly Shia and loyal to Maliki) have taken control of the various bridges over the Tigris River that separate Shia East Baghdad from largely Sunni West Baghdad.  These police troops are reinforced by armored vehicles that must come from the Iraqi Army.  They have moved in strength into the Green Zone, which contains the US Embassy, the Parliament and various government facilities.

“If Maliki wishes to seize control of West Baghdad it is difficult to see what would stop him.”

PL

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/10/us-iraq-security-maliki-military-idUSKBN0GA0WM20140810 and

http://www.news.com.au/world/troops-surround-baghdad-green-zone-as-embattled-prime-minister-maliki-appears-to-cling-to-power/story-fndir2ev-1227020033404

Another contribution on a different topic:

“Any thoughts on this.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpDKuN3cV_o

My response:

            In short: the hypothesis presented is plausible. 

            The Ukraine does possess several squadrons of Su-25 attack aircraft, and the Su-25 is armed with an integral 30mm cannon.  The only use of ball ammunition is for basic training purposes.  Certainly, they could load a can-load of ball ammunition, if they chose to do so.  As mentioned last week, the common combat load is usually a mix of various explosive rounds, e.g., HE, AP, WP, et cetera.  The image shown last week as well as in the vid-clip do not show indications of explosive warheads of any sort that I could see . . . just moderate-energy, ballistic impacts.

            Russia is one of the most accomplished and successful false-flag operators, which is not to say the Ukraine did not learn well from the KGB, NKVD, SVR, FSB, et al; they certainly have been the victim of Russian false-flag operations (1941/2).  The resultant international outrage and reaction would certainly substantiate the success of the operation, if it was a Ukrainian false-flag operation.  It is equally plausible the vid-clip is a false-flag, false-flag effort by the Russian to deflect accusations.

            The only hope we have of sorting it out will be an independent, expert investigation that can establish the authenticity and chain of custody for the evidentiary data.  I suspect the Russians will not be helpful to the independent investigation.

            In the light of all the conflicting information, my intuition still says the most likely scenario is a Russian firing unit, provided to the rebels, mostly manned by Russians, or possibly a Russian-trained, rebel firing crew, and an engagement of what the crew thought was a Ukrainian aircraft, but turned out to be MH-17.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“thx- interesting the analysis of the tape, as well.

“Also other commentators have mentioned the Spanish controller.  Now I see what the issue was.  A lot of loose clues floating around!!

“What is odd is that there has been no analysis of the black boxes...understand they have been found.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Loose ends, indeed!  As the mathematicians say, too many variables and not enough equations.  It is a near perfect situation for misinformation to induce confusion and doubt. 

            Re: black boxes.  To my knowledge, both the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) have been recovered and transferred to the Dutch (and probably the British AAIB or French BEA).  I am fairly certain both units have been examined by now, probably initial and secondary interrogations.  If the status has been made public, the Press has not picked it up.  We need to know authentication of both units as well as integrity, i.e., have they been tampered with?  A few aviation sites report they have valid data from both units, but I’ve not seen official authentication.  Given the uncertainty on the ground at the crash site, I doubt the authorities will release the associated data without public demand, until the ground investigators have done as much as they can do in situ, given the proximate combat.  I would not be surprised if there were signs of SVR efforts to watch what is evolving inside the investigation team.  The FDR & CVR data should provide very important information regarding what happened. 

            Re: vid-clip.  A few additional observations on the U-Tube vid-clip: I am quite suspicious of the commentators claim the single recovered piece (we have been discussing) is a long way from being definitive of either cannon fire or “targeting the pilot.”  We need a lot more definitive evidentiary data to substantiate a claim like that in this instance.  There was way too much loosey-goosey, suggestive information, which simply heightens my doubt regarding the clips premise.  Further, if the evidence conflicts with the Russian hypothesis, it would be further implication regarding Russian culpability in this incident.

 . . . and one more round before publication:

“I am skeptical too of the Su-25 shootdown – however, I noted that some of the holes in the wreckage are round, like ball ammo – and not like that from a missile.  

“Also, the longer the black box details are kept out of the public, the more speculation- especially since the boxes are with the Dutch or another Western country.  Further, there was a NATO exercise ongoing at the time in the Black Sea region, BREEZE 2014 that should have electronic records of the MH17 flight.  The fact that nothing has been released from what records should be available is curious.

“The Spanish controller might also be a fake, and the Ukrainian General Prosecutor is reported to have said that the Ukrainian rebels did not have a Buk missile system.

“Stay tuned....”

 . . . my follow-up response:

            Re: MH-17 penetrations.  I noticed that as well.  I am not that familiar with the SA-11 warhead, i.e., I’ve not see representative, burst, test patterns.  I know it is a fragmentation warhead, which is common among SAM weapons.  It appeared the impact trajectory was a fairly sharp, oblique angle to the fuselage skin.  Fragments can make strange patterns.  I did not see signs of high energy or explosive impacts.

            Re: FDR & CVR data.  I believe the actual units have been transferred to the AAIB (UK) for download.  It is not clear who will analyze the data – probably a combination group.  I do agree; withholding the flight data will only add to speculation.  Perhaps the authorities remain concerned about the safety and security of the field team.  Once they are safe and out of the combat zone, hopefully, they will release the data for public scrutiny.

            Re: Operation BREEZE 2014.  Thx for the information; I had not been aware of the NATO, Black Sea exercise in proximity to the MH-17 event.  I have not heard anything from those warships.  I would feel a lot better if we had a U.S. Navy Aegis-class cruiser in the Northern Black Sea at the time.

            Re: rebel Buk system.  Interesting!  So, if true and it was an SA-11 missile involved in the shootdown, then it was either Russian or Ukrainian.  I am not sure how they will sort that out.

Comment to the Blog:

“I understand that the various spy agencies have long argued about who is more incompetent or crooked than whom, but that is simply the result of that dualistic outlook among the unsupervised. It's rather like giving kindergarteners real weapons with live ammunition. The question is whether the adults can regain control.

“I'll say again that the real issue facing spies everywhere is the increasing difficulty of maintaining secrecy. Regardless of any opinions about what should be, what has always been, etc., a question remains. If the spy agencies, Facebook, Google, and various other entities can obtain anyone's information almost at will, can complete, involuntary openness/transparency be far behind? That ought to be interesting.

“I had a difficult time understanding the Aero lawsuit. If the programming in question is actually broadcast (rather than delivered via cable or satellite to only paying customers), the point is probably moot anyhow. Even if not, the trip to the Supreme Court has given this technology enough publicity to open the way for an underground market that will thrive.

“In reference to copyright and several other issues, I will recommend a book. Free: the Future of a Radical Price, by Chris Anderson (ISBN 1446409554) centers on Internet commerce but touches upon numerous other topics. The basis of his discussion is how authors, musicians, and other creative people can adapt to the fact that copyright protection has become impossible. As a small-time writer, I found it fascinating and relevant. Anderson uses numerous examples from a broad spectrum of the business world to show that profitability can be maintained by a major change of perspective. (I got my Kindle copy for free, of course, but the hardback is around $14.95 on amazon.com.) Anderson published in 2008. Since then, the advent of 3D printing has made this work even more important.

“I never really expected the FDIC to become the guardian of sanity in banking, but I certainly welcome them if it plays out that way.”

My response to the Blog:

            Re: spy agencies.  We shall respectfully disagree.

            Re: secrecy.  You are probably quite correct.  However, as a consequence, we are likely to experience far more misinformation usage to cause confusion as to what is real.

            Re: Aereo.  The case was marginal at best from the get-go.  To put it simply, the Court erred on the side of the copyright holder. According to the law, the case could have easily been decided either way.  The broadcast networks are desperate to adapt to a vastly different medium than they enjoyed in their heyday.

            Re: copyright.  Without copyright protection, why should authors, musicians or artists create anything new or original?

            Re: FDIC.  Indeed.  Agreed.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)