Archive for October, 2014

Bruce Ivins strange subtilis goes against plates in trash theory

October 25, 2014

October 25, 2014

The facts say Ivins grew the spores on 546 plates used to test dosages for animal experiments.  Those test plates were supposed to be destroyed after readings were taken, but Ivins evidently didn’t destroy the plates until after he used the spore contents in the anthrax letters.

An unidentified subtilis was found in the mailed anthrax, in the New York Post letter I believe from memory.

Ed Lake makes clear that the procedure was to throw out plates, not reuse them.

It has been assumed “by everyone” or concluded “by everyone” that the unidentified subtilis indicated a trial run was done and the same equipment reused with the actual anthrax.  However, if Ivins did it with anthrax plates thrown away in the trash as Ed Lake suggests, there would be no trial run with subtilis.

Thus the presence of unidentified subtilis indicates a trial run done with whatever equipment set up is used. As shown by Ed Lake, the plates with anthrax thrown in the trash at Ft. Detrick were not reused but instead destroyed.  Thus these plates are ruled out by the subtilis.

Instead, a method was used that involved a trial run using subtilis on the same equipment.  This points towards someone either a) not familiar with anthrax b) doing something with anthrax they are not familiar c) using an equipment setup that is new, e.g. in the field.

In any case, it rules out Ivins using plates thrown in the trash because such plates are not reused and so there is no trial run issue with them.

Also discussion between Dxer and Ed Lake on this topic

But it is duly noted that you concede Dr. Ivins did not use a fermenter to grow the anthrax.


It would seem that Ed Lake has also conceded that Ivins could not use (shaker) flasks to produce the anthrax also. That is why Ed Lake came up with the ingenious plates thrown in the trash theory.  So we can infer a triple play,

Ivins did not use plates in trash as proven by Ed Lake who shows that such plates were thrown out not re-used and we know the setup had to involve reusing from the trial run subtilis to the actual run anthrax.  Ed conceived his theory because he recognized that shaker flasks and fermenter were not possible for Ivins in his lab.  Thus Ivins is excluded.  The Triple Play that saves Ivins posthumously.

The subtilis suggests someone who could work in their lab without worry about being discovered.  They had plenty of time to do practice runs with subtilis.  It shows they were more worried about getting it wrong than about being discovered.  Ivins would have been more worried about being discovered taking the extra time for a subtilis practice run or more.  A practice run with a foreign subtilis would have been very suspicious since he had no reason to do such.

If he did a practice run with subtilis at home or some place else it would not be in the plates in the trash with anthrax at Ft. Detrick that Ed Lake was forced to posit as the only possible way left to save the Ivins did it theory.

The subtilis instead indicates someone with lots of time to do runs without worry of being discovered but who needed the practice.  That would be someone like field agents of al Qaeda in the US.  It could also be someone experimenting with a new silicon tin coating method.

They could practice on subtilis first.  It could also be a sophisticated country’s intel service playing games to set up a false flag. They could have either practiced making a strange mixture of different runs from different methods and then not realized the subtilis was in the final batch.  Or an intel service might have done it deliberately to create a confusing signal.

However, Ivins seems strongly excluded since Ed Lake has in effect shown that the only possible theory left for Ivins is plates in the trash bags, but as pointed out here, this proves Ft. Detrick did not reuse the plates so it is excluded because someone did trial run(s) with subtilis on the same equipment for the real runs.


Alleged video of Princeton ORFE Prof John Mulvey taking a sign

October 21, 2014

Horodynsky said in an interview that he believes the signs were stolen as a result of a traffic incident from August of last year that occurred near Rosedale and Elm, where the signs were allegedly taken from. Later that month, he said, he received a phone call from an unnamed male caller, who accused Horodynsky of cutingt him off in traffic. Horodynsky said the caller had noticed the name of his company, written on Horodynsky’s car, and allegedly promised to “remove all advertisements” from supermarkets and the road in retaliation. Three days later, Horodynsky said he began to notice signs in the area missing in the area.

“I thought, ‘Okay, this guy is going to fulfill his threat,’” he explained. He reported most of these to the police, “but [the thief] did it so often that I thought I would become a pain in the ass to the police.”

Should unsuspecting kids be exposed to someone with such an attitude?  Where does it come from?

Alleged video of Princeton ORFE prof John Mulvey stopping his car, taking a sign and driving off with him. This shows him pulling the sign out of the ground which another article says he claimed not to have done.

Given such a video, and assuming it is true and indicates Mulvey pulled a sign from the ground intentionally not just picked one up, how did he think he would get away with it?  Because of Martin Weitzman getting away with stealing the manure?  Because Princeton got away for decades of covering up Russia using plagiarism at Princeton as part of its spying?  Because Stanley Fischer and Harvard got away with it?

Howard Weitzman alleged manure theft Harvard during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay

Mulvey is a specialist in the same portfolio methods as Hakansson, Fischer and subsequent work presumably from his resume and his company one would assume.  Or at least has some familiarity with them.  Is this why he thinks he can take the sign and then later give an inaccurate version to the police or through his lawyer to the court?

Is it arrogance? Or is it something deeper? Could they be involved with the Russia plagiarism files schemes in some way?How deep are they involved if they are involved?  Russia plagiarism kompromat may involve the killing of Berezovsky in 2013 and the Boston Bombing and possibly the Russian private security company Mongoose doing bad things.  How much if any does Mulvey know? What about Princeton ORFE? Rest of Princeton?

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Report Mulvey only took signs of one company not others on same land

October 21, 2014

In addition, the owner of the property from which the signs were stolen, Joyce Johnson, said only the signs for Princeton Computer Tutor & Repairs, a local computer company, were taken even though there were other signs on her property, including some political ones.

The missing lawn signs belonged to Ted Horodynsky, president of Princeton Computer Tutor & Repairs.

According to the records, officers at Mulvey’s home confronted him about the apparent targeting, but he “couldn’t explain why he only removed Horodynsky’s signs.”

He did not respond to a request for comment, nor did his lawyer.

This report seems consistent with a specific animus.  But it also is consistent with the idea that Mulvey thought he could get away with it.  Why?

Because Martin Weitzman stole the manure allegedly which was worth more in money damages?  Or because both knew their respective universities had withheld info from the FBI about Russia using plagiarism kompromat on Stanley Fischer to get IMF loans?  Both knew Harvard withheld info from FBI during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay?

Because Mulvey knew that Harvard and Princeton continued to withhold info after death of Berezovsky to shut him up about Stanley Fischer? After Boston bombing? During Stanley Fischer background check?

These profs think they can get away with covering up spying, blackmail and murder by Russia?  Even after FBI told of it? So they can steal signs if they want to?  Should parents of children to be exposed to him be told what Princeton knows?

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

John Mulvey ORFE Princeton to tutor students but risk assessment needed

October 21, 2014

John Mulvey of the ORFE unit of Princeton University is to tutor children to get out of being prosecuted according to news reports.  However, Princeton and other universities possess information they should disclose to the prosecutor, judge and the parents prior to these students being exposed to this professor.

The Princeton University professor accused of stealing 21 lawn signs from a computer business will perform 120 hours of community service in a Trenton educational facility in exchange for theft charges being dismissed.

“I think that’s the best option all around for students in the Trenton area to be exposed to a distinguished professor who can hopefully provide them some guidance,” municipal prosecutor Reed Gusciora said Monday. “It’s in the best interest for kids in Trenton who can take advantage of his academic success.”

What was John Mulvey’s state of mind when he allegedly stole the signs?  To assess this, the court needs to be told everything Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Stanford and other universities know that may be relevant.

The signs started to disappear shortly after the traffic incident Horodynsky said he had with Princeton professor John Mulvey, 67, of Puritan Court, who now faces theft charges filed by police.

If the court accepts this as valid, what his state of mind was and his intent are important to assessing whether it is safe for him to have access to children.  For example, suppose he was part of a larger immoral nexus and his actions in the sign theft showed his apparent feeling he could get away with it would require evaluation of that larger immoral nexus.

In particular, the ORFE unit of Princeton University may be involved in the matters known as Russian Plagiarism Files as well as parts of Princeton that are associated with ORFE.

The research of Nils Hakansson that was plagiarized by Paul Samuelson, Stanley Fischer and possibly others is in the same field as ORFE and the research of Mulvey can be examined as to how much he may know of that.  Duffie’s later actions with the Jun Liu thesis and related cases are also relevant.

Princeton University withheld information during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay and the background checks of Bernanke, Yellen, and Stanley Fischer as well as others.  They have withheld information from the FBI on Russia’s use of plagiarism kompromat to get atomic secrets and later Nobel Prize nominations in economics and physics and later IMF loans.

Princeton was where Corson plagiarized Fock leading to the Fock letter. Princeton concealed that from the FBI during the FBI investigation of spying by Klaus Fuchs.  Information on this has been posted on the web here.  How much is Mulvey familiar with?  What is the role of the ORFE unit? What does he know?

It can be stated here that there are additional faculty and matters involving ORFE that require investigation by Princeton for potential academic misconduct and that Princeton should tell the FBI about in its investigations of Russia’s plagiarism kompromat.

Harvard prof Martin Weitzman was involved in a parallel case involving manure.…11921.15175.0.15458.….0…1c.1.56.serp..13.5.332.7eK4y9mshBU

Weitzman did his actions during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay. Weitzman was at econ conferences in Poland in 1970s and they were also OR conferences same as ORFE field where Russia may have put pressure on MIT and Harvard and U of Chicago and Princeton to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in econ for the Soviet Union to get prestige.  That should have been disclosed to the FBI and USAO Mass during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay.

It should have been disclosed during the background checks of Harvard profs. It should have been disclosed after the Boston bombing, after the death of Berezovsky, during the investigation of Aaron Swartz, etc.

This seems to be a parallel case that John Mulvey and Princeton may know of.  How did Mulvey think of that case? Did Mulvey think that Weitzman got away with it?  That Mulvey could do in stealing the signs?

Did Mulvey think that he knew about Princeton concealing info the same as Weitzman knew about Harvard? Did Mulvey think that would let him avoid being fired by Princeton same as in the Weitzman Harvard case?

Does Mulvey think the powerful get away with abusing the powerless?  That would include Hakansson and other victims of plagiarism and abuse.

Plagiarism is about abuse of power over the powerless?  It would seem so.  That would suggest if ORFE was part of it and Mulvey knew of it and went along that children should not be exposed to him.  The parents, prosecutor and the judge should know.

There are reasonable grounds to investigate if ORFE abuses the author of this post and is part of a conspiracy against the author and that ORFE and Mulvey should be questioned about his knowledge, participation if any or benefits from knowing about it.

H. Vincent Poor of ORFE should be questioned on this as well as other faculty there.

Prof Jose Scheinkman helped get speaking slots for Shleifer at an econ conference that helped keep him from being fired by Harvard. What did Scheinkman know of these things? About abuse by ORFE of the author of this blog post? Abuse by Chicago, Stanford, etc.?

Did Scheinkman know or guess that Shleifer, Summers, Fischer had information they did not disclose to USAO Mass and FBI during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay? Afterwards? After Boston Bombing? After death of Berezovsky? If they had disclosed info would the warning by Russia about Tsarnaev led to FBI not dropping that tip?

Does ORFE feel that it can abuse the powerless, including the author of this blog post and get away with it? Does Mulvey know of this attitude at ORFE?  At Princeton?  At Harvard?  Does this reflect Mulvey’s state of mind when he stole the sign posts as alleged?  How does it compare to Weitzman stealing the manure as alleged?

If Mulvey thinks that he is part of the powerful and they can abuse the powerless and the authorities ignore us when we speak up, does that mean he thinks he can abuse these children?  Do the parents have a right to know? Does the prosecutor and the court?

quote from article

Horodynsky said he places the signs outside places where he is contracted, with the permission of the business or home owner, and at other spots around town where such signs are allowed.

After filing several police reports, Horodynsky said he decided to set up a camera near one of his signs to catch the thief. Horodynsky said the video showed Mulvey on five separate occasions stealing his signs, putting them in a car and driving off.

Horodynsky said the camera caught the license plate of the car, leading police to Mulvey’s home, where the 21 signs were found in the garage.

“I’m relieved that after a year of being plagued by this that it’s finally over,” Horodynsky said.

Hakansson has been abused since 1969 and it is not over. He was denied his place in the textbooks. I have been abused by the ORFE unit for over a decade including during US v Harvard, Shleifer and Hay and the background checks. ORFE did not disclose this to the FBI as it should have. Nor to the prosecutor or judge who think that children are safe with an ORFE prof who may be involved in this or at least know of it or think he can get away with abuse because of this.

Princeton and the other universities need to disclose to the prosecutor, judge and parents what they know of this entire nexus of events involving plagiarism, Russia, blackmail and the other incidents including the death of Berezovsky which may have been a killing to keep him quiet while Stanley Fischer was made Vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

“Some people don’t like the signs and they throw them in the woods,” Mulvey said. “I make it my job to pick them up and keep them, so that’s what happened.”

Mulvey said he never took any of the signs out of the ground.

Did Mulvey lie? The article says he was caught on video.  If he is lying is that a sign of an abuser? If he is part of academic abuse the parents have a right to know before their children are exposed to him.

In this wider conspiracy of Russia kompromat, people have been killed it is possible. That includes Berezovsky and possibly others.  What does Mulvey know of this?  Did he know enough he should have told the FBI during the background checks of Princeton profs to the Fed? Of Stanley Fischer?

Has Mulvey said things on the phone or emailed before Snowden revelations that implicate him in something?  Does he realize that but the statements require interpretation and the FBI and NSA don’t realize the implications?  Does Mulvey think he may end up being exposed and feel desperate?  Did Weitzman feel the same? Weitzman removed contents of his resume from his web page indicating his involvement in Matekon in 1960s and 1970s?

What is Mulvey’s state of mind? Does he think the powerful abuse the powerless and get away with it?  Does he think he is at risk of larger charges and stealing signs doesn’t matter compared to his larger legal risk?  The parents of the children he is to tutor have a right to know. So does the prosecutor and the judge.

Princeton Municipal Court Judge John McCarthy is the judge.

Municipal Prosecutor Reed Gusciora handled case.

Princeton University including Scheinkman, H Vincent Poor and others as well as Stanley Fischer at the Fed should tell the judge what they know. The FBI likely has a substantial file on Russia plagiarism files from the Stanley Fischer background check. Material was sent to the Federal Reserve directly by this author in this matter.

Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cornell, U of Chicago and Moody’s should all tell what they know of this wider conspiracy and what Mulvey’s relation to it is if any.  This includes to the powerful abusing the powerless. That is something that applies especially to Stanley Fischer  at the Fed, which the Fed knows at the chairwoman level is likely.

Repeat of above quote

“I think that’s the best option all around for students in the Trenton area to be exposed to a distinguished professor who can hopefully provide them some guidance,” municipal prosecutor Reed Gusciora said Monday. “It’s in the best interest for kids in Trenton who can take advantage of his academic success.”

Is that really in their interest?  If Mulvey knew of the Weitzman manure theft and felt he could do the same and get away with it because Harvard and Princeton have withheld info about Russia blackmailing profs over plagiarism for decades and gotten away with it?  That Stanley Fischer got away with it despite the FBI finding out about it during the background check?  The prosecutor, judge and parents need to be told the full story by Princeton University and the other universities and the Federal Reserve so they can decide if this is in the best interests of these students.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Leon Panetta criticism of Obama is because Russia has kompromat on Obama?

October 10, 2014

Is the reason that Leon Panetta is out criticizing President Obama while still in office because Russia has kompromat on Obama?  This arises from the Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer appointments?  Obama has become an accessory to the plot and this is complicated by his being a former paid employee of University of Chicago, a co-conspirator with Russia against the United States?

University of Chicago was involved in numerous incidents in economics and physics including atomic espionage aided by plagiarism kompromat starting in World War II and the possible Markowitz Roy Cowles Commission incident in 1952, Oehme and Edge of the Wedge, Stanley Fischer plagiarism and more reason incidents.

Panetta’s actions are very unusual.  This is covered on TV and Kelly File where questions are raised about Panetta’s loyalty to make this criticism of Obama as weak.  Is the weakenss from kompromat on Obama?

Leon Panetta was head of the CIA and DoD. So he would know about some of the plagiarism kompromat discussed here.  Panetta was at the Stanford SIEPR Day where Stanley Fischer was given an award and 100,000 by Stanford while Stanford was acting as a co-conspirator with Russia to cover up and to engage in further acts.  These include those involving Darrell Duffie and further iterations of the plagiarism starting possibly with Markowitz, then Stanley Fischer and Paul Samuelson and then of portfolio theory dynamic optimization with stochastic interest rates.  Markowitz Roy was one period optimization, Hakansson was multiple period and then the case of stochastic environments leading to dynamic portfolio rules was a third iteration in this series of plagiarism of the portfolio optimization.

Russia used this to get the Nobel Prize nominations for Kantorovich in 1975 from Samuelson and Arrow.  Then to get IMF loans in the 1990s. Now to influence Duffie and Moody’s to lower Ukraine’s credit rating ahead of S and P and do less to lower Russia’s credit rating.  They also have kompromat over Obama over the Stanley Fischer appointment. That is linked to the murder of Berezovsky if that is the case.  Obama has potentially become an accessory to criminal acts. Eric Holder as well may be. That may be the reason he has to resign.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Kennedy Khrushchev removed from power Who Whom

October 10, 2014

Kennedy Khrushchev brought the world to the brink in 1962.  In 1963, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.

Kennedy ignited the world’s youth in a crusade against Communism world-wide.  Kennedy’s inaugural and his speech in Berlin presented the Soviet Union with a mortal threat.  Kennedy was a messiah of antiCommunism. He fused his appeal as a Catholic, an antiCommunist, a capitalist, and a sex symbol to ignite the youth of the world to revolt against Communism. the old men of the Kremlin were now presented with a fusion of religion, ideology, charisma and sex appeal that could topple them in an instant.

The leaders of the Soviet Union never felt safe. They never felt it was stable.  They were paranoid the whole time. It was a nation of paranoia.  They knew they had enemies.  As the 1950s ended, China turned against them too.

See Khrushchev link below for following quote.

The Soviets had planned to provide China with an atomic bomb complete with full documentation, but in 1959, amid cooler relations, the Soviets destroyed the device and papers instead.[243] When Khrushchev paid a visit to China in September, shortly after his successful U.S. visit, he met a chilly reception, and Khrushchev left the country on the third day of a planned seven-day visit.[244] Relations continued to deteriorate in 1960, as both the USSR and China used a Romanian Communist Party congress as an opportunity to attack the other. After Khrushchev attacked China in his speech to the congress, Chinese leader Peng Zhen mocked Khrushchev, stating that the premier’s foreign policy was to blow hot and cold towards the West. Khrushchev responded by pulling Soviet experts out of China.[245]

Kennedy Speech Berlin June 1963

Kennedy was an existential threat to Russia.

I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed.

Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was “civis Romanus sum.” Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!

There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.

What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

Russia’s hands were all over it, but the US blinked and ignored it.  Oswald came back from Russia. Oswald went to the Soviet embassy in Mexico before the assassination.

He also attended Cuban related events in Mexico City.

Kennedy was a mortal threat to Cuba and Casto but also to the Soviet Union and the Kremlin’s leaders. Kennedy was bold, inspiring and ruthless to defeat Communism.  The overthrow of Castro could help put the Communists on the defensive and lead to a military coup in Russia.

The Soviet Union dissolved at the end of 1991, 28 years after Kennedy died.

If Kennedy had lived, it would likely have ended sooner, perhaps even in the 1960s.

Khrushchev was another leader whose liberalism and possible instability was seen as a threat to the old men in the Kremlin.


Beginning in March 1964, Supreme Soviet head Leonid Brezhnev began discussing Khrushchev’s removal with his colleagues.[246] While Brezhnev considered having Khrushchev arrested as he returned from a trip to Scandinavia in June, he instead spent time persuading members of the Central Committee to support the ousting of Khrushchev, remembering how crucial the Committee’s support had been to Khrushchev in defeating the Anti-Party Group plot.[246] Brezhnev was given ample time for his conspiracy; Khrushchev was absent from Moscow for a total of five months between January and September 1964.[247]

Nikita Khrushchev with Anastas Mikoyan in Berlin

The conspirators, led by Brezhnev, First Deputy Premier Alexander Shelepin, and KGB Chairman Vladimir Semichastny, struck in October 1964, while Khrushchev was on vacation at Pitsunda, Abkhazia. On October 12, Brezhnev called Khrushchev to notify him of a special Presidium meeting to be held the following day, ostensibly on the subject of agriculture.[248] Even though Khrushchev suspected the real reason for the meeting,[249] he flew to Moscow to be attacked by Brezhnev and other Presidium members for his policy failures and what his colleagues deemed to be erratic behavior.[250] Khrushchev put up little resistance, and that night called his friend and Presidium colleague Anastas Mikoyan, and told him,


Khrushchev may have gone quietly because he had ordered the Kennedy assassination.  He may have felt somewhat to blame as well as the possibility it could be used against him. They would claim he did it for personal reasons and exposed the country to war.

If the Kremlin was a place of such intrigue and uncertainty and risk, they may have felt emboldened to go after Kennedy. They saw him as a threat just like Khrushchev.  Given the Kennedy brother efforts to have Castro assassinated, they may have felt Kennedy was fair game.

So Kennedy and Khrushchev were removed.  The Kremlin settled down to almost 25 years of quiet until a new reformer, Gorbachev and a new antiCommunist destabilized the Soviet Union and ended it.

Did the Kremlin remove two men who were a source of instability and a threat to their rule? One in America, one in Russia?

Overwhelmingly, Russia and Cuba benefited from the removal of Kennedy. Oswald showed support of both and met with both before the assassination.

What of Jack Ruby?

Discussion of Ruby’s ties to Cuba, mafia, etc.

Russia has a pattern of assassinations world-wide stretching back even to Tsarist times.  Anarchists from Russia also were part of assassinations in the US, including attempted of Frick and President McKinley.

We know that Putin carried on this tradition with Alexander Litvinenko in 2006.

Berezovsky seems likely to have been killed as part of the return of Stanley Fischer to the US, since Berezovsky likely had used kompromat on Stanley Fischer to get IMF loans in the 1990s.  Russia and Israel were covering that up. Obviously, elements of the US government know of this now and likely some have known since the 1990s.

Clinton may have used it to help get IRS audits of Paula Jones because Larry Summers was head of the IRS reorg in the late 1990s including in 1997 and the IRS was without a commissioner during that time.  At that time, Paul Sameulson uncle of Summers was linked to the Fischer plagiraism and Russia’s use of plagiarism. Also possibly involved were Kenneth Arrow and possibly Summers’ own parents as go-betweens in the 1970s to get Arrow to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in econ to help get Samuelson from being exposed by Russia then.

LTCM bet on Russia government bonds likely knowing of this history and even being part of it. That was covered up and concealed by Congress including by the Federal Reserve then or since then.

That gives Putin huge leverage over the US establishment.  Leverage he counted on to invade Ukraine and get away with it.

Did Putin invent such bold acts as shooting down MH17 and possibly MH370, Polish airplane, Boston Bombing, etc?  Or was this small change compared to killing Kennedy?  Putin may not be a bold innovator but simply following in long established tradition that has already led to the greatest assassination of the Cold War and which may have given the Soviet Union an extra 10 or even 25 years.

What about other mysteries?  Did al Qaeda get support from Russia? Perhaps intelligence passed through before 9/11?  Did Israel give Russia intel from US that Russia gave to a front group run by a Russian Private Security company like Mongoose or Mangust?  That is linked to Renova Group, Viktor Vekselberg and Alexander Zyurikov.  They have an extensive history in Central Asia and the same places as the Boston Bombing group spent time in.

Much later, the highest-ranking Soviet Bloc intelligence defector, Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, said that he had a conversation with Nicolae Ceauşescu who told him about “ten international leaders the Kremlin killed or tried to kill”: “László Rajk and Imre Nagy of Hungary; Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu and Gheorghiu-Dej in Romania; Rudolf Slánský, the head of Czechoslovakia; and Jan Masaryk, that country’s chief diplomat; the Shah of Iran; Palmiro Togliatti of Italy; American President John F. Kennedy; andMao Zedong.” Pacepa provided some additional details, such as a plot to kill Mao Zedong with the help of Lin Biao organized by the KGB and claimed that “among the leaders of Moscow’s satellite intelligence services there was unanimous agreement that the KGB had been involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.”[385] Pacepa later released a book, Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination, in 2007.

Pavel Sudoplatov was a Soviet intel officer involved in assassinating Trotsky in 1940 in Mexico City. He also was involved in atomic espionage. His book Special Tasks said Oppenheimer, Fermi, and Szilard went along with spying for Russia.  This book came out in 1994 and caused a sensation in the US among physicists who denounced it on PBS News Hour.

Stanley Fischer became the Deputy IMF Director at IMF in 1994 and Summers handled IMF and Russia at US Treasury.  The big loans from IMF to Russia then started in 1995.  Berezovsky got his loans for shares in 1995.  He was putting pressure on Fischer and Summers it appears.  Vekselberg who was a math Ph.D. in Moscow then rose in mid 1990s likely because he knew Berezovsky in the 1980s when Berezovsky was at the Institute of Control Sciences which did optimization work such as of use in transportation the area of the Moscow university that Vekselberg got his Ph.D.

Zyurikov had a history at cites in Russian Central Asia linked to Russia’s secret scientific work likely including some of the work in Russia’s use of plagiarism kompromat against American profs to get atomic secrets and Nobel Prize nominations and then IMF loans.

Russia’s history of plagiarism kompromat goes back to the 1920s and is closely linked to atomic secrets and economic intrigue at IMF and World Bank.  A soviet spy helped found both of these, Harvard econ Ph.D. Harry Dexter White.

Harry Dexter White was born in Boston, Massachusetts, the seventh and youngest child of Jewish Lithuanian[3] immigrants, Joseph Weit and Sarah Magilewski, who had settled in America in 1885.

Same background as Stanley Fischer but later and his parents went to Rhodesia where he was born. He then later went to Israel and then MIT in Boston where he plagiarized Nils Hakansson in his Ph.D. and involved Paul Samuelson so that Russia could apply leverage on him. This may have been a joint Israel Russia operation.  Samuelson’s first Ph.D. student was a Communist who then went to Cowles Commission at U of Chicago. Some act possibly of plagiarism occurred there possibly involving the Harry Markowitz thesis at U of Chicago. The Stanley Fischer was copying Hakansson’s extension to multiple periods of the one period portfolio optimization of Roy and Markowitz. The Roy and Markowitz papers were both edited and published at Chicago in 1952.  After that two people were fired by Cowles and the editorial office of Econometrica which published the Roy paper moved to Northwestern from U Chicago. Markowitz could ont get his Ph.D. approved until Cowles left Chicago in 1955. Markowitz got his Ph.D. the first quarter after Cowles Commission left.

Klein briefly joined the Communist Party during the 1940s, which led to trouble years later.

Paul Samuelson was president of the econometric society around 1952 the time of the firings and possible plagiarism. The same profs who sponsored Hakansson’s thesis that was plagiarized also sponsored that of Markowitz at Chicago, including Koopmans and Jacob Marschak.

Koopmans helped Kantorovich get the Nobel Prize in econ in 1975 and shared it with him. Hakansson was at Yale from 1967 to 1969 with Stiglitz while this was happening.

Jacob Marschak (until 1933 Jakob) was born in Kiev as a son of a jeweller. During his studies he joined the social democraticMenshevik Party, becoming a member of the Menshevik International Caucus. In 1918 he was the labor minister in the Terek Soviet Republic. In 1919 he emigrated to Germany, where he studied at the University of Berlin and the University of Heidelberg.

So it all one twisted ball for Russia.  The Kennedy assassination could fit onto a crowed dance card of crime.  Moreover, Kennedy was a threat to Russia. He also might have found out about some of these plots.  If Kennedy had lived he would have been president while the MIT caper was starting in 1967 and 1968.  Kennedy was bad news for Soviet intel ops all around.

Academia in the US was still full of Soviet spies and those who knew but said nothing in the 1960s.  Kennedy was a crusading antiCommunist who inspired the young. He might have cracked much of the Soviet continuing spy apparatus in the US. That in turn could have led to exposure and another crisis with the Soviet Union.  Kennedy’s death ended that possibility.

At any one time, Russia has multiple conspiracies and plots in various stages. These go from planning to cover-up.  At any one time, they may feel that some person is a threat to these plots and remove them.  This has been the entire history of the Soviet Union and to some extent even the Tsarist secret police had a history of operations abroad including in Paris before WWI as well as Central Asia.

The sooner the Stanley Fischer situation is exposed by the universities, Moody’s or the FBI and MI5 the sooner some of this is nipped in the bud. Allowing Russia to get away with these activities, whether Kennedy or not there are enough others, leads them to act more boldly.  The more Russia thinks the FBI and MI5 are covering up for them because of politicians on the top exerting pressure, the bolder they will become. MH17, MH370, Boston Bombing, Berezovsky killing and Ukraine invasion may be part of that boldness from inaction by FBI and MI5.

Putin is former KGB.  To Putin, if the FBI and MI5 help the politicians cover-up it shows the US and UK are paper tigers and he can do anything, even shoot down airplane(s) and get away with it.  He can also feel he can kill inside our countries and get away with it.

This is draft and preliminary. The above is hypotheses and speculation. Comments and corrections welcome. Please restate as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

More on Cowles Commission in Chicago.


Stanley Fischer and Berezovsky death indicate likely linkage

October 5, 2014

Stanley Fischer resigned unexpected in January 2013 the week after I sent an email to MIT asking he be investigated for plagiarism and Russia’s possible use of it to get IMF loans.  I asked them to investigate if Berezovsky was involved.

Berezovsky then dies in March 2013.  Fischer is nominated at end of year for Fed Vice Chairman.  At that point, Berezovsky can’t be questioned by MI5 on behalf of FBI about the hypothesized pressure by Berezovsky and Russia to get IMF loans from Fischer in the 1990s.

Putin brings up Anatoly Chubais after the Boston bombing, just weeks after the death of Berezovsky.

This seems too much for chance.

Once one accepts it is not chance, it implicates Obama in a coverup.  In effect, Obama, Israel and Russia are co-conspirators in killing Berezovsky to cover-up wrong doing by Stanley Fischer.  Obama already has liability through the Larry Summers appointment.

Usual disclaimers.

%d bloggers like this: