Suppressed Intelligence Reports (Volume 2)

The Greatest Conspiracy

Understanding the following essays may result in further understanding that your social environment is comprised mainly of individuals whose written and spoken words evidence a pronounced mental detachment from reality. These individuals, thinking, speaking and believing only in floating abstractions constitute a ludicrous spectacle of childlike machinations and monitions unfortunately nurtured by superior physical force and willingness to use violence to impose their ill conceived notions and values upon each other and innocent bystanders.

*******

I am a conspiracy researcher, but not a raving fundamentalist, a statist, a theorist, a theist, a theosophist, an egoist, fascist (Republican), communist (Democrat), humanist, apologist for political or religious groups, or any other "ist" which you may be tempted to hang on me if you continue to read the information which is presented here. I am neither Democrat nor Republican; neither Anarchist nor Libertarian. I display no banners. I do not salute. I do not pledge allegiance. I do not stand for passing parades. I do not vote. I do not contribute time or money to candidates for public offices. I reject all authority outside of myself. I am my own temple. I am a member of no fraternal organization.

I do not attend sporting events.

I watch very little television and only documentaries at that. I have not watched a sitcom for perhaps 17 years. I have been to only five motion pictures in the same period of time. I do not know the names of movie stars or sound recording artists because I believe they are not worth my time. I don't know the name of the Representative for this district, either State or Federal and for the same reason. I know and talk to most of my neighbors. I do not go out to eat. I am a good cook. I can build houses. I can repair automobiles.

I believe Americans should grow as much food as they can for their own use and for sharing with neighbors. I think for myself but I am willing to read and hear the expressions of others and to use them in forming my personal goals if they make sense. I believe if every American owned at least one handgun or one long gun and was properly educated in its use and care, and was adamantly determined to use it defensively when required, we would have considerably less criminal activity, especially from members of the so-called federal government.

My father was my only true hero.

I recognize and acknowledge that there were (and perhaps still are) many historic heroic figures. None of them ever were or ever will be lawyers, attorneys, counsellors, judges, presidents or politicians. Such professions are the anti-thesis of heroics. They are, all of them, male and female alike, liars and cowards of the first degree. Amelia Earhart; Jackie Cochran; James Doolittle; the Aussies Charles Kingsford-Smith and Charles T. P. Ulm; the Brits John Alcock and Arthur Whitten Brown; Douglas Macarthur; Kit Carson; Chief Joseph; Seattle; Black Elk; Crispus Attucks... these names come to mind when the idea of heroics arises. Or just point to any one of millions of moms and dads, police officers, fire fighters, ambulance drivers and others, who get up and go to work every day, sick or well, sad or happy, inspired or not, just to feed and clothe their children and pay the mortgage. They fit the description of heroic, at least in my book. But none of them are my heroes. My hero is gone.

The closest you might come--if you wish to categorize me-- is to say that I am a nonpartisan iconoclast, but only in the narrowest confine of each word.

nonpartisan (non-pär'-te-sun) ad.
1. impartial, nonaligned, neutral. A non-voter.

iconoclast (h-kÄn-ð-klast) n.
1. One who attacks traditional or popular ideas, institutions or misconceptions.

I say in the narrowest confine of each word because Charles Fort has written, and I concur:

Honest Opinion (p. 92)
"Our own acceptance is that justice cannot be in an intermediate existence, in which there can be approximation only to justice or to injustice; that to be fair is to have no opinion at all; that to be honest is to be uninterested; that to investigate is to admit prejudice; that nobody has ever really investigated anything, but has always sought positively to prove or disprove something that was conceived of, or suspected, in advance."

No mortal is ever completely fair and no mortal can ever be completely disinterested, particularly if one's pleasure is attacking popular social, political or religious misconceptions.

If you feel compelled to comment on these reports, please be kind enough to leave all acrimonious phillipic out of your notes. I will trash them straightaway for I have no time to entertain hate mail. The worst will be forwarded to the postmaster for action. If it contains anything close to a death threat, the message, complete with your name and address, goes to the local FBI. Period.

Because I am reasonably well read and have a desire for questioning the authority of propaganda from any source, left, right or center; social, political or religious, I have spent the better part of my 65 years digging for "the truth."

During ten of my twenty years in the naval service I was assigned to duties within the intelligence community, including a tour at NRTSC in Suitland, Maryland, and a tour at DIA in Arlington, Virginia. In the middle years of that service I read as many as 300 books per year during a period of about six years (more than most people will read in a lifetime) trying to inch my way closer to the truth. Let me assure you that the truth is only rarely accessible. Too many times I've discovered to my everlasting dismay, after months of research, that truth is cloaked in misdirection and outright disinformation. And as you will soon discover in the following essays, your own city, county, state and federal governments

would prefer that you never know the whole real truth about most of the activities in which they are engaged. But not knowing at least some of the truth could cost you your life. It has most certainly cost you your freedom.

It was once observed that nobody ever changed anything unless someone or something was pricking at their psyche. That is my mission--to prick holes in your psyche. Still, some of you will simply adopt a position of outright denial--like the ostrich with its head in the sand; perhaps if you refuse to see then it cannot harm you! Sadly, that is not the case for ostriches or for humans. Those who refuse to accept any of the information here are like the lost explorer feeding his tucker to the alligators, hoping they will get full before they reach him or, at the least, eat him last, which is nothing more than delaying the inevitable.

Unlike the secular media, which endeavors to present only one side of any issue; that is, the side which represents the ideas and concepts which they wish most to implant in your mind as being the only valid ideas, I will, at times, present ideas which may appear to be contrary to the current "patriot" viewpoint. I do so because I believe it is important to understand counterpoint to vital issues. Such essays may change your views about certain things or they may serve to strengthen your strongly-held convictions. The point is that by presenting more than one boring side of the world, you may be induced to think more introspectively about what you feel you believe. We cannot again be a free people as long as we cling miserably to old lies and misconceptions.

At the beginning of the Vietnam conflict, while serving a tour of duty at DIA, I was soundly chastised by a tradition-shod officer for reading the works of Chairman Mao. He accused me of being a communist. "But, sir," I replied, "how can we expect to defeat our enemies if we do not understand his political agenda and philosophical concepts?" He had no answer, but confiscated my book nonetheless. I hope he had the good common sense to read it but I suspect, since America lost that conflict, neither he nor most of his colleagues read Chairman Mao (or Jefferson, Henry, Spooner, Marx, Engels or Trotsky, for that matter).

Excerpt 2

LOST CIVILIZATIONS

Nearly all of the 'lost civilization' theories have become associated with the legend of Plato's 'Atlantis', thus the concept and its study have been largely ignored by the serious academic community.

Yet ironically it is probably the legend of Atlantis itself, however fanciful, that has provided the foundation for the belief in the existence in a prehistoric civilization to account for the out-of-place knowledge and artifacts detailed in much of modern literature.

Atlantis was first mentioned by Plato in his work, the 'Timaeus', in which he detailed the mighty island of Atlantis and its proud peoples who, is the course of " a single day and night" were swept by earthquake and flood into the depths of the ocean.' Despite his pupil Aristotle's belief that the story was fantasy, invented to moralize on the nature and consequences of human ambition, Plato was adamant that the former existence of Atlantis was a matter of historical fact.

Whatever the truth, the legend certainly was considered factual for many centuries with even mediaeval sea-charts showing unknown 'Atlantis' islands.

Yet if there was a 'lost civilization' (regardless of its connection with or not to the Atlantis legend) it would have had to have had a home, and any identified location would have to provide supporting evidence that a civilization actually did live there, for, as Egyptologist Mark Lehner rightly points out, without evidence of remains, it would be safer to conclude that there was no former civilization, and the purported clues to its existence would have to be explained in some other way.

Many locations for the lost civilization have been suggested with many of them centering on the Mediterranean area. A Dr. James Mavor set out one theory in his 1969 book, believing that the lost peoples were a Minoan civilization. This followed earlier claims first set out in the 1930s by Greek scientists Dr Angelos Galanopoulos and Professor Spyridon Marinatos .

There is certainly some evidence to support Thera, an island near Crete in the Mediterranean, being the location of an early civilization. Professor Marinatos, under the auspices of the Archaeological Society at Athens, began a systematic excavation of a town on the island, Akrotiri in 1967, after evidence of early habitation had been discovered there in the second half of the 19th century.