Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination
The FBI’s War on Rock Stars
By Salvador Astucia
PART II: THE BUREAU
|Chapter 4: FBI Surveillance on the Internet|
The Internet Police
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.
Eyes on the prize - taming of the Internet
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.
Where did the Internet come from?
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
Penetrating Tier 5: Usenet Activity
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.
Usenet Surveillance Model
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
FBI vs CIA & Military
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:
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.
Counterintelligence on the Usenet
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.
|Interview with Susan, probable Usenet informant|
|Around August 20, 2003, I established telephone contact with "Susan," one of the Internet Police who attempted to thwart my discussion thread about Jose Perdomo, the guard (aka, doorman) at the Dakota on the night John Lennon was killed. Susan lives in York, Pennsylvania and is a frequent poster on rec.music.beatles. York has a satellite FBI office which reports to the Philadelphia field office located at the William J. Green Jr. Federal Office Building, 600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. The Philadelphia field office is run by Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey A. Lampinski, and assistant SACs Rosanne Russo, Laura M. Laughlin, and Brian W. Lynch.24 It is unknown if Susan works directly for any of these individuals, but that is the administrative hierarchy for her geographic region per the FBI’s official website. Susan likely reports to an agent who works for one of the stated SACs.|
|Susan from York, Pennsylvania|
Surprisingly, Susan agreed to answer questions over the telephone while I
recorded the conversation. On August 4, 2003, I had posted a list of ten
suspected FBI informants who police rec.music.beatles. Susan was on the
list, along with Charlie Gauger (aka, Mr. Charlie), Ian Hammond, and John
Web (aka, Johnny Dupe). When I established telephone contact with Susan, I
was amazed that she would reveal so much information. Her Usenet responses
to me had been less than cordial to say the least. Susan directed me to a
webpage which shows photographs of several regulars on rec.music.beatles.
She never admitted that she works for the FBI, but at one point she agreed
with me that Lennon’s murder was probably sponsored by the US Government,
then she tried to blame it on the CIA, instead of the FBI. When I asked her
why she was doing the "tap dance," she claimed she cloaked the FBI and the
CIA together. Then she also paid me some compliments which was quite
unexpected. "I have been reading your stuff about the shooter and the
different angles," Susan said. "I’ll not admit on the newsgroup that I’m
reading your stuff, but yeah. It’s all very interesting. And I’d like to
read a little more about that. I hope you can take it a little further."
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
|Charlie Gauger is a frequent poster on rec.music.beatles with an obvious hidden agenda and is probably an FBI informant, or Internet Policeman. From what I’ve seen, Gauger is primarily assigned to "penetrate" the forum, not control it. In other words, he frequently responds to other posters, but he rarely writes new articles to prompt discussions. In fact, his knowledge of the Beatles, and music in general, is quite limited. He has responded to several discussion threads which I started about John Lennon’s assassination, and his message was always the same: Stop discussing Lennon’s murder! He engages in bitterly personal attacks without looking at or considering evidence presented.|
|For example, when I started a serious discussion about Lennon’s security being dropped, by security guard Jose Perdomo, on the night of Lennon’s murder, Gauger responded as follows: "Of course, like a dog returning to its own vomit Sal comes back yet again." Can you believe an adult would write something like that? But juvenile comments are just the tip of the iceberg. Besides character assassination, another tactic Gauger uses is publishing what he thinks is my true identity hoping to intimidate me. He began doing this when I publicly pressured the New York City Medical Examiner’s office to release John Lennon’s autopsy report for public inspection.|
Gauger is believed to between 50 and 55 years old and lives in Morgan Hill,
California. Morgan Hill is near San Jose which has an FBI office located at
950 South Bascom, Suite 3011, San Jose, California 95128. The San Jose
office is a resident agency for the San Francisco field office located at
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th. Floor, San Francisco, California 94102-9523.
The Special Agent in Charge of the San Francisco field office is Mark J
Mershon.26 It is unknown if Charlie Gauger works directly for Mershon, but
that is the administrative hierarchy for Gauger’s geographic region per the
FBI’s official website. Gauger likely reports to an agent who works for
Mershon. Earlier I mentioned that FBI Director Robert Mueller—who once
served as U.S. Attorney in San Francisco—publicly revealed the existence of
a San Jose-based "strike force" and an Internet crime unit he helped create
in San Francisco.* I asked Gauger—publicly, on rec.music.beatles—to
confirm if he was part of Mueller’s strike force. "Seriously," I remarked,
"you're part of the San Jose ‘strike force’ that Mueller described. Right?"
Clearly agitated, Gauger replied: "Seriously? No. Now, are you going to
twist that simple and true declaration into another bizarre fantasy or are
you going to take it as offered and move on?"27 It should be noted, however,
that when questioning a suspected FBI informant about his/her true agenda,
one should always remember the following caution about informants from the
FBI’s website: "Use of informants to assist in the investigation of criminal
activity may involve an element of deception."28 In other words, if Gauger is
an informant assigned to Mueller’s strike force, he’s going to lie about it.
Gauger uses several aliases, his most recognized screen name being "Mister Charlie;" however, I suspect he uses the following screen names as well: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org (DNA FBI), Shemp email@example.com.
|Gauger is not the first suspicious character on the Usenet I have encountered from the San Jose/San Francisco area. About five years ago I encountered another dubious individual—Ray Heizer—of questionable moral fiber who spent nearly every waking hour acting as an Internet cop on another Usenet discussion forum, a right-wing anti-Clinton newsgroup called alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater. Heizer lives in Lafayette, California, a community between Berkeley and Walnut Creek, the same general area as Charlie Gauger. Given Heizer’s geographic location, he could very well be working with Mueller’s strike force as well.|
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:
|Heizer is in his mid-to-late fifties and reportedly made quite a bit of money in the software business. Heizer had a sidekick on his newsgroup whose real name is Michael Osmalov (aka, John Q. Public – JQP), from Wisconsin, a state which appears to be another FBI hub for Usenet surveillance. For example, I have encountered another suspicious character—John McAdams—from the cheese state. McAdams is an associate professor of Political Science at Marquette University in Milwaukee31 and chief moderator for alt.assassination.jfk, a newsgroup about President Kennedy’s assassination. McAdams also posts frequently on alt.conspiracy.jfk, an unmoderated JFK newsgroup.|
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
|Another shady individual on the Usenet who lives in the cheese state is John Web (aka, Johnny Dupe) from Oshkosh, Wisconsin.35 Web is extremely vulgar and pollutes discussions deemed objectionable by making crude, adolescent comments which often deal with homosexuality and child molesting. Web is one of Charlie Gauger’s sidekicks on the Beatles’ newsgroup, rec.music.beatles. Web is a hack writer for Parody Nation, an online smutpaper, and a similar journal called the "Daily Hog." Web writes about sex, rock music, and terrorism. Surprisingly Web’s persona, Johnny Dupe, claims to have interviewed ex-Doors organist Ray Manzarek in June of 2003.|
|John Web (aka, Johnny Dupe)|
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.
|Surprisingly, I encountered quite a bit of Usenet surveillance on rec.music.beatles which originated from Australia. Len Richards—from Down Under—is a frequent poster on that newsgroup. Australia has a Legal Attache for the FBI at the American Embassy in Canberra, Australia.36 The individual who runs the Legal Attache is unknown. Richards may report to that person. Richards works with Charlie Gauger and is known for making vitriolic, insulting personal attacks against anyone who posts objectionable material. Richards also likes to quibble of trivia as a means of discrediting people.|
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 (firstname.lastname@example.org), The Man From R.Y.N.O, Sekrit Agent (email@example.com), Comte de Bugtussle et Montemerde (scarcely.found@Eotworld.com).
|I encountered another shady character from Down Under—Ian Hammond—who frequently posts on rec.music.beatles. Hammond and Len Richards probably report to the same individual at the Legal Attache for the FBI at the American Embassy in Canberra.37 Hammond uses a different approach than Charlie Gauger, Len Richards and most of the other informants on rec.music.beatles. Hammond appears to be a bona fide musicologist, but he specializes in classical musical, with only superficial knowledge of Beatles’ music. For example, Hammond slipped up—in an exchange with me—and accidentally admitted he didn't know George Harrison used a Gretsch guitar.|
This is not something the general public would know, but it is quite odd for
someone who claims to be an expert on the Beatles and their music not to
know this sort of information. It’s like a physicist who doesn’t know the
formula for Einstein’s theory of relativity is E=mc², or an economist
unfamiliar with Adam Smith or his famous book, The Wealth of Nations.
People who claim to be experts in certain fields are expected to know basic
facts about their area of expertise. If they don’t, they’re either suffering
from serious mental impairments or they’re frauds. The latter is the case
with Ian Hammond. He claims to be an expert on the Beatles and their music
but is unfamiliar with important details on the subject, like the make of
Harrison’s most popular guitar, the Gretsch Country Gentleman. I
don’t dispute that Hammond is a qualified musicologist in the area of
classical music, but his knowledge of the Beatles is quite shallow.
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.
Analysis of Usenet discussions on rec.music.beatles
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, 2nd revision, 3rd 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.
|1||Sources: (1) Douglas Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP: Principles, Protocols, and Architecture, pp 329 & 333; (2) Andrew Tanenbaum, Computer Networks (Second Edition), pp 35-36; (3) William Stallings, ISDN: An Introduction, pp 85-86; (4) Encyclopedia Britannica: Internet|
|2||Jennifer O'Neill, Medill News Service; "FBI Battles Computer Crime 'Epidemic'", March 07, 2001; PC World: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,43844,00.asp|
|3||Excerpt from Mueller’s statement to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, February 11, 2003: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/mueller021103.htm|
|4||Excerpt from Mueller’s speech to ITAA conference combating E-Crime, Fairfax, Virginia, October 31, 2002: http://www.itaa.org/infosec/gendoc.cfm?DocID=44|
|5||William Sullivan & Bill Brown, The Bureau, pp 85-86|
|6||ibid, pp 87-88|
|7||ibid, p 16|
|8||The statements about informants are from the FBI’s official website: Frequently Asked Questions - http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/faqs/faqsone.htm|
|9||Encyclopedia Britannica: Federal Bureau of Investigation|
|10||SOURCES: (1) The CIA’s annual budgets for fiscal years 1997 & 1998 were obtained from the CIA’s official website: http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/faq.html#3; (2) The FBI annual budget for fiscal year 2003 was actually a budget "request" from director Mueller, dated March 6, 2002, submitted before the House Committee on Appropriations, the Subcommittee for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies. The cited document was found on the FBI’s official website: http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/03-06-02.htm|
|11||William Sullivan & Bill Brown, The Bureau, pp 201-202|
|12||FBI Washington, DC website: http://washingtondc.fbi.gov/|
|13||Independent investigator Carol Valentine publicly stated—on a discussion forum, on September 17, 2002—her recollection of several conversations with Gary Martin and Hugh Turley about Patrick Knowlton's previous employment as chief of security at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, DC. The name of the discussion forum was The Oslo Accords, motive for Vince Foster's murder (?). Valentine’s testimony about Knowlton’s previous employment was not challenged or refuted by Martin, Turley, Knowlton, or John Clarke (Knowlton’s attorney). In fact, Martin, Turley, Knowlton, and Clarke immediately withdrew from the discussion after Valentine gave her testimony.|
|14||Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, pp. 120 & 134|
|15||Michael Fischbach, The Oslo Accords, http://www.palestinecenter.org/palestine/osloaccords.html|
|16||Encyclopedia Britannica: Yitzhak Rabin|
|17||William Sullivan & Bill Brown, The Bureau, pp 128-129|
|18||ibid, p 35|
|19||ibid, p 37|
|20||ibid, p 36|
|21||ibid, pp 39-40|
|22||ibid, p 41|
|23||ibid, p 184|
|24||Philadelphia FBI website: http://philadelphia.fbi.gov/|
|25||The timeline of George H.W. Bush’s directorship at the CIA comes from the CIA's website. Http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/bush.html|
|26||San Francisco FBI website: http://sanfrancisco.fbi.gov/|
|27||Charlie Gauger publicly denied being part of the FBI’s Cyberterrorism "strike force" in the San Jose area. Gauger made the denial on September 9, 2003, on rec.music.beatles, in a thread named "Mister Charlie the zoloft addicted psycho."|
|28||The statement about informants is from the FBI’s official website: Frequently Asked Questions - http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/faqs/faqsone.htm|
|29||Ray Heizer, excerpt from Usenet Posting entitled: "Whopper Trail," newsgroup: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, March 17, 1998|
|30||Ray Heizer, excerpt from Usenet Posting entitled: "A Trio of Daves and a Fountain of Lies," newsgroup: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, November 23, 1997|
|31||John McAdams’ credentials: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/newgroup5.txt|
|32||Quote from William Manchester is on a page about Oswald on John McAdams’ website: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm|
|33||Milwaukee FBI website: http://milwaukee.fbi.gov/|
|34||Additional credentials for John McAdams found on Marquette University’s website: http://www.marquette.edu/polisci/McAdams.htm|
|35||SOURCES: (1) An unnamed informant to Astucia stated that John Web lives in Wisconsin. (2) On August 19, 2003, J. Web publicly disclosed—in a message he posted to a Usenet/rec.music.beatles discussion thread entitled "Mr. Charlie’s Address"—that he lives in Oshkosh, Wisconsin|
|36||FBI website: Legats: http://www.fbi.gov/contact/legat/legat.htm|
|38||Ian Hammond, excerpt from Usenet Posting entitled: "Beatle recordings: Which had the best piano parts??" newsgroup:rec.music.beatles, June 23, 2003|
|39||The information about Ian Hammond’s business ventures was provided to the author via email from a poster on rec.music.beatles. The author (Astucia) posted the stated information on rec.music.beatles, where Hammond and his friends could see it, and no one challenged its truthfulness. Therefore it is presumed to be true.|