It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Fastwalker81
In protecting the security operations of MAJESTIC, it has been necessary to [BLACKED OUT] individuals who would compromise the intelligence efforts. While distasteful [BLACKED OUT] times, the use of [BLACKED OUT] measures have been executed. The untimely death of Secretary Forrestal, was deemed necessary and regrettable.
www.majesticdocuments.com...
Other sources:
www.princeton.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.dcdave.com...
keyholepublishing.com...
www.trumanlibrary.org...
[edit on 28/1/09 by Fastwalker81]
Originally posted by DNAlien Fusion
Talk about beating a dead horse. Yeah, were gonna figure this out now and solve the mystery like so many before us did. Geez.
Originally posted by PhyberDragon
reply to post by wylekat
Anyways, the bank thought it an odd transaction for his account, so, they ran it by three of their professional analyst's, private and law enforcement, and they were stumped, curious, they sent it to the Smithsonian's Letters and Standards for handwriting analysis. The analysts there sent it back as inconclusive, they could not confirm or deny whether it was or was not written by my dad.
I'm that good anyways, because, after the bank called my dad about it and he realized he never wrote the check, he lied and said he did to protect me from prosecution.
The fallout created by the subsequent frenzy of atmospheric testing is projected to cause between 100,000 and half-a-million cancer fatalities by the end of the next century. And the radiation doses will go on long after that because some radionuclides, such as plutonium-239 and carbon-14, have half-lives lasting thousands of years.
Originally posted by Fastwalker81
CONNELLY: He thought that the same things were happening, that people were annoying him, and he felt he was under surveillance down there, he felt that he was being watched, and in other words, he was being personally persecuted. So as a result of that, we had him very quietly removed to Bethesda hospital in Washington.
Originally posted by DNAlien Fusion
Talk about beating a dead horse. Yeah, were gonna figure this out now and solve the mystery like so many before us did. Geez.
Originally posted by searching_for_truth
reply to post by Logarock
He was in one of the navy ships ashore. When the marines were raising the flag on top of mount suribachi, he said something like " That would mean marines for the next 500 years" You can search the net on the details of actual event and what actual words he said. It's just like he saw the future 500 years ahead huh
Originally posted by PhyberDragon
And Menninger is an interesting aspect. As I don't know his first name, I'll ass ume it is the Army Psychiatrist, Dr. William Menninger, chief of Army neuropsychiatry.
The meeting then proceeded to a discussion of Dr. William C. Menninger's ...... hypnotic studies on the predominantly individual nature of color symbolism. ..... as arising in the form of hallucinatory images and ideas of drive objects, ...
(of course, why would he have been left with a pen or pencil either, and, how did the corpsman know what he was writing? Did he discuss it with him, or did the guard rudely look over his shoulder, and old NAVY dog like Forrestal would have been a less than blunt irate about that, I would think).
Originally posted by Fastwalker81
I will elaborate further on this in a separate post.
The Misnamed Witness
The testimony of the witness who followed Harrison on the stand, but was relieved by him on the night of Forrestal’s death, is perhaps even more intriguing than Harrison’s, and it is also reproduced here in full:
Examined by the recorder:
Q. State your name, rate and present station.
A. Edward William Price, hospital apprentice, 339 78 55, U.S. Naval Hospital, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Neither the recorder nor the members of the board desired further to examine the witness.
The board informed the witness that he was privileged to make any further statement covering anything relating to the subject matter of the investigation which he thought should be a matter of record in connection therewith, which had not been fully brought out by the previous questioning.
The witness made the following statement:
He started reading a book at about twenty hundred and whenever the corpsman would come in the room he would turn the bed lamp off and sit down in the chair and so far as the writing I don’t know. It appeared that he was but I couldn’t say for sure.
Neither the recorder nor the members of the board desired further to examine this witness.
The witness said he had nothing further to state.
The witness was duly warned and withdrew.
There’s the curious matter of the misspelling of the corpsman’s name. No, this is not just another example of poor scholarship by Hoopes and Brinkley. In this case, their source, the undated, unpublished outline of a manuscript by John Osborne is verifiably correct and the Navy’s official investigation of Forrestal’s death is wrong. Every time he made an entry onto the medical chart, Exhibit 3 accompanying the Willcutts Report, he signed his name, and it is unmistakably the rare name of “Prise,” not the common name of “Price.”
Maybe this is not the trivial matter that it might seem to be. There are only two possibilities, either the name was repeatedly typed wrong by the Review Board by mistake, or it was intentionally written wrong. If it was just a mistake, the overall competence of the work is called into question. How could they get something as simple as this wrong, and if this is wrong, how much else is wrong?
And how could the mistake happen? Corpsman Prise had been on the case from the beginning. He was well known to the higher-ups involved with Forrestal’s care, and they all must have read the draft of the report. Surely they would have known that his name was not “Price,” and would have corrected the manuscript when they read it. It was hardly rushed into print, so there was plenty of time to set it right. Furthermore, the likelihood that the name would have been taken down wrong at the beginning of Prise’s testimony is very small. When he was asked to state his name, he did it either pronouncing it “Prize” or “Price.” In the first instance, hearing the strange name, the recorder would likely have asked him how it is spelled, if he did not volunteer it. In the second instance, the volunteering of the correct spelling would certainly have been virtual second nature to Mr. Prise. He would already have done it thousands of times in his life, knowing that the common assumption would be that the name is spelled like it is pronounced.
For some reason, the very existence of Prise was also left out of the account that the hospital gave to the newspapers in the wake of Forrestal’s death. The newspapers reported at the time that Harrison’s watch began at nine p.m. and lasted until six a.m., which the author, Simpson, repeated in his version of Forrestal’s last hours. Harrison’s name shows up a number of times in those early stories, but Prise’s does not.
That leaves us with the greater likelihood that the name was misspelled intentionally, and the implications of that are quite sinister, indeed. It is a technique that is used by corrupt investigative authorities when they want to make it difficult for others to track down witnesses, witnesses whose testimony has been misrepresented. There was a classic example of it, among others, in the case of the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster in the Bill Clinton administration. Investigators reported that a Patrick Nolton from Washington, DC, saw Foster’s car in the parking lot of Fort Marcy Park, Virginia, when Nolton stopped off for an impromptu urination. It took a foreign reporter, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the Telegraph of London to get past the obfuscation:
I grabbed the Fiske Report and flicked to page 28.... The key passage had been expurgated....
"Finding this witness was no easy matter. His name was redacted in the FBI documents. There was a brief mention of him in a Park Police “incident report”: a Patrick Nolton, with a Washington telephone number 296-2339. But nobody at the number had ever heard of him–it appeared to be a doctor’s clinic–and it soon became clear that there was no such person as Patrick Nolton in the District of Columbia, and never had been. The Park Police had done a first-rate job of “laundering” the identity of the witness.... (The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories, Regnery Publishing, 1997, p. 159.)"
But Evans-Pritchard, using a bit of detective work, managed to find Patrick Knowlton and interview him. It turned out that he had seen a reddish-brown, older model Honda than the light gray Honda that belonged to Foster, and he was quite sure of the matter, and other parts of what he had told the FBI were also misreported.
“Patrick Knowlton is convinced that the FBI did not misunderstand him when they wrote up his 302 statement the next day. He believes they knowingly falsified it.” (p. 162)
If any part of Prise’s testimony is knowingly falsified, what part might it be? My candidate is that last volunteered part about Forrestal reading a book and perhaps writing. The passage doesn’t make much sense, but it did manage to get the suggestion on the record that Forrestal might have been doing some transcribing from a book at some time on that fateful evening–although the book seemed to have disappeared.
Whether or not this speculation is correct, the failure of the poetry book to turn up anywhere in the testimony of the review board witnesses suggests strongly that the author Simpson is correct:
"The whole overplayed Sophocles-poem angle was nothing but a red herring that effectively threw the public off the scent of the significant fact that the prolific Forrestal had written no suicide note before he met his abrupt and violent death. (p. 18)"
Originally posted by PhyberDragon
Wonder what's in the spaces.
As for the belt/ sash around his neck, I find it hard to believe a career NAVY man doesn't know his simple knots. Why was the other end not connected to the radiator, whatever? Is there photographs of the belt/ sah available? Does the end not around his neck have knot scrunches on it to indicate it was once tied and pressure applied and it just came loose, is it still knotted, is there scrunchie marks along it's length indicating it were wound around someone's hand or arm and pressure applied to the overlap points of the fabric from the bodies weight pulling on it-- as though he were strangled or strangled by hanging then let go to his death?
The sash to his bathrobe was tied tightly around his neck.
When the doctor shone the light you could see one end was tied around his neck and the other end extended over toward the left part of his head. It was not broken in any way and didn't seem to be tied on to anything. I looked to see whether he had tried to hang himself and see whether a piece of cord had broken off. It was all in one piece except it was tied around his neck.
This might sound persuasive to the uncritical reader. But notice what’s missing. We hear nothing from the people in the position to know, the naval corpsman and the doctor who were on duty there on the 16th floor at the time of the death. Interestingly, Hoopes and Brinkley even withhold their names, as though they are afraid that someone might track them down and find out what they saw and heard that fateful night. We also hear nothing from the nurse who was supposed to be in charge of that floor that night. Instead, we get a psychiatrist, who later worked for the supervising psychiatrist who was in Montreal at the time of the fall and an “intuitive” naval corpsman who, by his own words here, had left for the night well before the fall occurred.
Originally posted by Logarock
If this was murder he must have aggravated more than just some powerful person. Sounds like a consortium.
They could have killed him anywhere to shut him up. Rather they took the time to put him in the nut house in affect casting questions on all he stood for, his opinions and views.
The answer to why could be discovered by looking in to his opinions, writings if their were any, people and views he had problems with etc.
Did he really say that "they are here and we cant do anything about it"?