December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

IP: New Evidence Exposes Vince Foster Murder
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: New Evidence Exposes Vince Foster Murder Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:07:35 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Washington Weekly http://www.federal.com/oct26-98/Story01.html New Evidence Exposes Vince Foster Murder Victim Not Shot With .38 Caliber Revolver By WESLEY PHELAN Vince Foster, Deputy White House Counsel early in Bill Clinton's first term, was found dead in Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993. Three investigations into Foster's death, including one by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, have ruled the death a suicide. Patrick Knowlton, referred to as "C2" in Starr's Report, entered Fort Marcy Park approximately 70 minutes before Foster's body was discovered. Evidence shows that Foster was already dead at that time. Knowlton saw two vehicles in the parking lot, neither of which matched the description of Vince Foster's 1989 silver- gray Honda. In the spring of 1994, FBI agent Lawrence Monroe interviewed Knowlton for the Office of regulatory Independent Counsel Robert Fiske. Knowlton learned in October of 1995 that his statements to Monroe were falsified in the FBI interview report. Shortly thereafter Knowlton received a secret grand jury subpoena from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, who was conducting the third investigation into Foster's death. That same day several men began to harass Knowlton in the streets of Washington, D.C. John Clarke, attorney for Knowlton, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., claiming the harassment was a violation of Knowlton's civil rights [1]. The suit alleges the harassment was part of a larger conspiracy to cover up the facts surrounding Vince Foster's death. On Wednesday of last week Clarke filed an amended complaint in the suit, adding several new defendants [2]. The most striking paragraph in the complaint states: Facts 26. On July 20th, 1993, between the time of 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., Vincent Foster died of a small-caliber gunshot wound to his head, at the hand of another. The bullet entered his head from the upper portion of the right side of his neck, under the jaw line, passed upward through the body of the tongue, pierced his brain and struck the skull approximately three inches below the top of the head, fracturing it. The bullet remained in his head. Blood drained from the entrance wound in the neck onto his right collar and shoulder and was absorbed down onto his right shirtsleeve. Blood also accumulated in his mouth. This statement of facts, which runs counter to the results of three official government investigations, is a very bold gambit by Clarke. Under Rule 11 of Federal Civil Procedure, for an attorney to make irresponsible assertions of fact before a court opens him to severe sanctions by the judge. In the following interview, conducted on October 21, John Clarke discusses with The Washington Weekly the compelling new evidence supporting his statement of facts. QUESTION: You filed an amended complaint today on behalf of Patrick Knowlton, correct? CLARKE: Yes, we have named some additional defendants in the case. We also have more of the facts in the case. QUESTION: Why was there a need to file an amended complaint? CLARKE: Amending the complaint is the usual course of events in lawsuits. As a party learns more things the lawsuit gets changed. That is particularly true in a conspiracy case. Conspiracies by their very nature are secret. Our job is to try to unravel the conspiracy and that means bringing new facts to light. We have done that, so it became necessary for us to amend our complaint. QUESTION: Who were the original defendants in the case? CLARKE: The original defendants were the people who harassed Patrick, including two individuals whom we named. There were two FBI agents named, one of whom falsified reports, and the other whom we believe was involved and knew in advance of the intimidation that Patrick suffered. QUESTION: Who falsified documents? CLARKE: Larry Monroe, one of the FBI agents who was assigned to Robert Fiske's office. He interviewed Patrick in the Foster death investigation, and falsified Patrick's statements in his report. Later on the truth surfaced in the London Sunday Telegraph. Foster died on July 20, 1993. Nine months later Monroe interviewed Patrick twice. Eighteen months after that the 302's were public. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard was following the case, but Patrick had never heard of Ambrose. Ambrose contacted Patrick and showed him the 302's, that Patrick said lied about what he had told the FBI. So Ambrose wrote an article that appeared in the October 22 edition of the London Sunday Telegraph. That appeared on U.S. newsstands on October 24th, a Tuesday. That same day the Office of Independent Counsel prepared a subpoena for Patrick to testify before the Whitewater grand jury the following Wednesday. They typed it up on a Tuesday for testimony a week from the following day. But they didn't serve it right away. They waited until Thursday, October 27th to serve it. And that was the beginning of the intimidation Patrick suffered. We believe this intimidation was a civil rights violation, to intimidate a federal witness in order to dissuade him from testifying fully, fairly, and truthfully. We filed suit based on that. We also believe this civil rights violation was part of a conspiracy. Under the law of civil conspiracy all members of the conspiracy are liable and answerable for anything done in furtherance of the conspiracy. If the civil rights violation was in furtherance of a conspiracy, even if the defendants did not know who Patrick Knowlton was, they are all liable for what happened to Patrick. That is what we call the theory of the case and it's what we are proceeding on. What we did today was file an amended complaint to name additional defendants who were members of the conspiracy. Even though these people did not know who Patrick Knowlton was, and even though they did not personally harass him, they were a part of this joint venture and that's why they are liable. Two things very relevant in the prosecution of Patrick's case are: (1) if there was a cover-up surrounding the death of Vincent Foster; and (2) who covered it up. About 10,000 pages of documents have been released regarding the Foster death. We just recently completed our review of these documents and got our summary down on paper. It's not in its final form. But we are now in a position to find out who did what, and what happened in the Vince Foster case. We have unraveled a lot of it and that's why we added defendants in our amended complaint. The first defendant we added is U.S. Park Police sergeant now retired, Robert Edwards. He was the third Park Police officer to respond to the body site. As he was walking up to the body site the first Park Police officer was leaving. Edwards ordered him to leave the park and return to his duties. Edwards proceeded to the body site where Park Police officer Franz Ferstl was photographing the body. Ferstl was the 'beat officer'; it was his beat. He took about 7 photographs before Edwards got there. Edwards then took Ferstl's photographs and sent Ferstl to the parking lot. Then two other Park Police officers walked up to the body site, Lt. Patrick Gavin and Christine Hodakievic. They stayed for a few minutes and left. That left Edwards alone at the body site for about 10- 15 minutes, with the only photographs that had been taken. Edwards then tampered with the crime scene by moving the head to the right. This allowed blood that had accumulated in the mouth to drain down onto the right shoulder. He then repositioned the head straight up, leaving a contact stain on the right side of the chin. The contact stain occurred when the chin hit the wet shoulder. Edwards did that because he wanted to make it appear that the blood -- which was already on the right shoulder, right side of the shirt, and right side of the neck and collar -- had come from the mouth. He wanted to provide an excuse for that blood being there. You don't commit suicide by shooting yourself in the neck, so they wanted to cover up the neck wound. So the excuse for the blood on the right side, the OIC tells us, is blood had accumulated in the mouth and an early observer turned the head to the right, whereupon the blood drained out. Then this early observer turned the head back up, leaving the contact stain on the chin. That's right. He wanted to leave a sign of having moved the head, because that's the excuse for the blood. His excuse for having moved the head to the right was to open up an airway, although no one tried to resuscitate Mr. Foster. We know Edwards moved the head because all of the observers before Edwards said the blood was dry, and the witnesses after Edwards said the blood was wet. The OIC never said who the early observer was, but it was pretty obvious that they couldn't find anybody who said they did it or saw it being done. So to the OIC this is an unknown person; they didn't know who this person was, although it had to have been Edwards. This is important because officially there was no wound on the side of the neck. Foster supposedly shot himself in the mouth. But he did not have an entrance wound in his mouth. The entrance wound was on his neck. The blood had drained from the neck. In order to conceal the entrance wound in the neck, you have to conceal where the blood came from. So Edwards turned the head to right to let the blood drain out, to provide an explanation for the blood that was already there. This is also what caused the two lateral drain tracks that came from his nose and mouth going toward his ear. People say those tracks show he was moved to the park. That's not really true. We believe that occurred from Edwards' actions after the body was already at the park. QUESTION: Do you think Edwards was in the know about a need for cover-up when he moved the head? CLARKE: You would think so, wouldn't you? QUESTION: His job was to do something to help cover this up? Is that what you think? CLARKE: Yes, that's what I think. I don't think he all of a sudden, sua sponte, did that on his own, with nobody telling him to. Anyway, the official version is that there was a mouth entrance wound and an exit wound in the back of the head. But actually, there was no entrance wound in the mouth, and there was no exit wound at the top of the back of the head. There was only one visible wound from the outside, and that was to the neck. QUESTION: How do you know that there was no entrance wound in the mouth? CLARKE: Let's do the entrance and exit wounds at the same time. Twenty-five witnesses saw the body before the autopsy. There is a record of not one of them having seen an entrance wound. QUESTION: Well, they would not have opened the mouth, would they? CLARKE: That's true, although two of those persons were MD's whose job it was to inspect the body. But there is no record of any of those 25 witnesses having seen either the mouth entrance wound or the exit wound at the top of the head. The only reference is to officer Ferstl, who allegedly saw an exit wound. Five Park Police officers all prepared reports and in none of those reports was there a reference to an entrance wound, an exit wound, or blood. QUESTION: I thought Dr. Haut stated he saw matted blood at the back of the head. CLARKE: He did say matted blood at the top of the head. QUESTION: I thought he said the back of the head. CLARKE: Right, the top of the back of the head, where you would expect this alleged exit wound to be. He did see blood there. But the best evidence we have is the Park Police officer who gloved up and felt there. That was Officer John Rolla. He said a big hole would be one he could put his finger through. He said, "His head was not blown out. I probed his head and there was no big hole there, there was no big blowout. There weren't brains running all over the place. There was blood in there, there was a mushy spot. I initially thought that the bullet might still be in his head." He uses the word hole, but that's not what he described as what he felt. He said if you could put your finger in it, that's a big hole. He says he couldn't put his finger through any hole. QUESTION: But he did mention a hole being present, didn't he? CLARKE: No, although he used the word hole in general terms, he what he says found at the back of the head was a mushy spot. A mushy spot is not a hole. There was blood back there. What we think happened is the bullet, after it entered under the right jaw line, went straight up and fractured the top of the back of the head. It remained in the head. John Rolla does not describe an exit wound, and Richard Arthur said there was no exit wound. QUESTION: Who is Richard Arthur? CLARKE: He was in the group of the 4th to 7th people at the scene. First on the scene was the U.S. Park Police officer, then one EMT and a paramedic, then minutes later came Richard Arthur accompanied by 3 others. Richard Arthur was the only paramedic in that group of four. He was the second paramedic at the body site. Arthur said that there was no exit wound. He was asked if he could describe the exit wound. He said, "Was there one? I didn't know there was one." That's the other record we have pertaining to an exit wound. The only person we have not covered for whom there is a record of being there is Dr. Haut. Haut said that there was a neck wound. He wrote in his report "gunshot wound mouth-neck." QUESTION: That's on the second page of his report, isn't it? CLARKE: Yes. QUESTION: The first page of the report has a spot where a word, presumably 'neck,' is evidently whited out, and another word inserted -- 'head' is inserted instead. Is that correct? CLARKE: That report has Dr. Haut's signature on it. It is dated July 20, 1993. It is verified. It has an "I hereby certify and affirm under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia," and it goes on and on. He says in effect "I swear that I undertook an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the death and this is what I found." Under "circumstances surrounding death," it says, "U.S. Park Police found a gunshot victim, mouth to neck." That's not an error. If you are the medical examiner you're not going to say there's a neck wound unless there is. Haut's statement is the only record of an exterior wound that anyone of 25 witnesses saw. Richard Arthur was interviewed five times and the best record we have of what it was he saw was in his deposition, with no opportunity by the FBI to spin or edit his account. He is asked the following question in the deposition, and I'm quoting: "Let me ask you this: if I told you there was no gunshot wound in the neck, would that change your view as to whether it was a suicide or not?" And he responded, "No . . . what I saw is what I saw . . . I saw a small - what appeared to be a small gunshot wound here near the jawline. Fine, whether the coroner's report says that or not, fine. I know what I saw." QUESTION: Let me make sure I understand. The only reference to a head wound, other than a "mushy spot," would be on the first page of Haut's report. Is that correct? CLARKE: Yes, on the first page. The first page says "Cause of death" in a small area. In there it says "gunshot wound" on one line. Then "gunshot wound" with a dash and then right under it some little black marks with no word there, and then to the right of that it says "head." So it looks like it originally said "gunshot wound mouth" then under it, centered properly, was the word "neck." In order to falsify it they whited-out the word "neck" and moved the paper a bit to the side, and then typed "head." The reason they moved it over was because otherwise they would have to type over the whited-out word, which would have been apparent on the photocopies. If you type over white-out you can tell. QUESTION: What did the autopsy report say about the head wound? CLARKE: We have just covered all the witnesses up till you get to the autopsy. The body was found on Tuesday around 6:00 p.m. The autopsy was originally scheduled to occur Thursday at 7:00 a.m. Dr. Beyer claimed that he rescheduled the autopsy as soon as he heard about the case, from 7:00 a.m. on Thursday to 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday. He rescheduled it for just 16 hours after the discovery of the body. He said it was his idea, he didn't talk to anyone about it, no one suggested it, he just decided to do it. QUESTION: Where are the records of what he said? CLARKE: That comes from his Senate testimony. Both of the Park Police investigators on the case, Rolla and Cheryl Braun, had called the Office of the Medical Examiner for Northern Virginia, Dr. Beyer's office, Wednesday morning as they were getting off work. Rolla testified that he waited instead of leaving work at 6:00 a.m. He said he waited until about 6:30 before calling the Medical Examiner's Office. The reason he waited was he wanted to call to make sure they weren't going to do the autopsy that day. They told him over the phone, "Don't worry, it won't be done till the following day." So he went home . . . QUESTION: Why did he not want it done on Wednesday? CLARKE: There is a requirement that law enforcement officers attend an autopsy. So he was calling to make sure he would be available to be there, because he had just worked all night. So he went home. Braun's story is pretty much the same. Then they both got a call about 8:30 or 9:00 saying, "We're going to have the autopsy at 10:00. Do you want to go?" And they said "No." Four other Park Police officers attended the autopsy instead. Normally Dr. Beyer would perform the autopsy or Dr. Fields would. But in this case, an unknown person assisted Dr. Beyer in the autopsy. QUESTION: Have you found out who that person was? CLARKE: No, he's named as a "John Doe pathologist" in our suit. QUESTION: Isn't that strange? CLARKE: It gets more strange. Four Park Police officers, Robert Rule and three other personnel, go to the autopsy to witness it. There is Dr. Beyer with his unknown, unusual assistant, whose identity is never revealed in 10,000 pages of records. According to his deposition Robert Rule asked Dr. Beyer who the assistant was, and Beyer refused to tell him. He would not identify the guy who was helping him with the autopsy to the police who were there! The autopsy was scheduled for 10:00, but Dr. Beyer began much earlier than that, before the police arrived. He stripped the body, x-rayed it, and then of all things to do he took out the tongue and portions of the soft palate. The reason he did that, we allege, is to hide the fact that the bullet pierced the tongue from below, and the absence of an entrance wound in the soft palate. QUESTION: Is he then named as one of the new defendants in the case? CLARKE: Yes, Dr. James Beyer. QUESTION: How about the mystery person? CLARKE: Yes, we call him "John Doe Pathologist." QUESTION: When you name somebody like that in a suit who is not previously identified in the records, will that person's identity have to be disclosed? Will they be required by the court now to come forward with this person's identity? CLARKE: Not until discovery. We have to do discovery. QUESTION: You will get it through discovery? CLARKE: Oh, yes. QUESTION: You think you will? CLARKE: Sure. QUESTION: What if they say 'National Security'? CLARKE: (Laughs). They won't be saying that. This is the Medical Examiner for Northern Virginia, who covered up . . . 'national security'? They might say that but I don't think they will get away with it. We'll find out a lot. But the astounding stuff is what we already know. Let me continue on with the autopsy. There is also testimony that Dr. Beyer did not photograph the entrance wound -- that portion of the soft palate that allegedly had the entrance wound. Why would he not photograph that? In addition, he reported that on the soft palate there were very large amounts of what he called "gunpowder debris." He said it was "grossly present," meaning it could be seen with the naked eye. He described it as "large quantities of powder debris." He sent his 5 slides containing 13 sections of the soft palate to the Virginia Department of Forensic Sciences. They issued a report saying there was no ball-shaped gunpowder identified on any of those tissue samples. QUESTION: When did you learn of the existence of this report? CLARKE: Somebody told me about it nearly a year ago. This is a very interesting thing. The finding of powder debris on the soft palate by Dr. Beyer is the absolute cornerstone of the entire official conclusion of suicide in the park. QUESTION: That Vince Foster stuck a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger? CLARKE: Right. That is the cornerstone of the official conclusion. Now, this Virginia Department of Forensic Science report said that no ball-shaped gunpowder -- and ball-shaped gunpowder is the type of powder allegedly found by Beyer -- was found. The FBI laboratory issued a report on May 9 or 10 of 1994, which said no ball-shaped gunpowder was identified on the tissue samples when the Office of the Northern Virginia Medical Examiner examined them. And they didn't really have an explanation. In June, about a month later, they issued another lab report saying the tissue samples had been prepared in such a way as not to be conducive to retaining unconsumed gunpowder particles. In other words, it had been put in something -- formaldehyde or something - - which made it disappear. That's a lie. That didn't happen. Depending on the type of ball smokeless powder, the solvents, in order to destroy it, would have to be either ether or nitroglycerin. People just don't use that to preserve tissue samples. So Beyer was lying. And remember, that's the cornerstone of the entire conclusion. When we look at everything we've just talked about, the only word we have about this entrance and exit wound is from Dr. Beyer. You would think out of 25 witnesses before the autopsy -- an autopsy which is screwy from the start -- there would be some record of the entrance or exit wound other than the neck wound, if it existed. It did not exist until you get to the autopsy, and Dr. Beyer falsified his autopsy. QUESTION: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard claimed he was shown a photograph of the neck wound, correct? CLARKE: Correct. Ambrose told me that; I've asked him. QUESTION: Have you been able to track down this photo? CLARKE: No. QUESTION: Where do you think the photo might be? CLARKE: I don't know. QUESTION: Do you know who the last person would have been to have it? CLARKE: I have a couple of suspects. He was shown the photograph, so you have to ask yourself who showed it to him. QUESTION: Haut? CLARKE: No, no. I think it was XXXXX [redacted by request]. QUESTION: Who else have you added to your list of defendants? CLARKE: After "John Doe Pathologist," next is Robert F. Bryant. At the time of Mr. Foster's death, Bryant was Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Washington Metropolitan Field Office. He has since been promoted to Deputy Director, FBI. On Friday, July 23, 1993, three days after the death, he sent a Teletype to then Acting Director of the FBI, Floyd Clark. Clark was the Acting Director because Sessions had been fired a week before. Accuracy in Media got this Teletype, which is heavily redacted, through a Freedom of Information lawsuit. What it shows is that Bryant was sending it to confirm telephone conversations that took place on the 21st, the day after the death. He says something like, "This is to confirm our conversation wherein the preliminary results of the autopsy are that there was a .38 caliber gunshot wound with no exit wound." QUESTION: He said no exit wound? CLARKE: He confirmed the conversation with Floyd Clark in which he said there was no exit wound. On August 10th, about 17 days after he sent the Teletype, he appeared at a joint Park Police/FBI press conference to announce the FBI's finding of suicide in the park. He told everyone there a very thorough investigation showed it was a suicide in the park. His having done that constitutes his participation in the conspiracy. He is telling the American people, the press, that it was suicide in the park. Seventeen days earlier he confirmed his guilty knowledge of no exit wound. And this is the Special Agent in charge of the Washington D. C. Metropolitan Field Office. QUESTION: What did Dr. Beyer's report say about an exit wound? CLARKE: He said it was 1 x 1.5 inch, which is about the size of a half-dollar. Remember, it wasn't there earlier; John Rolla could have put his finger through something the size of a half-dollar. But that's what Beyer said. He said he put a probe through the head, and there is a record of one of the Park Police officers having seen the probe going in through the mouth and coming out through the back of the head. QUESTION: Did the Park Police officer sign a statement that he saw that? CLARKE: No, but I believe that he did see that. But that Park Police officer didn't get there until after Beyer had done God knows what to the body. He's reported as having removed the tongue and portions of the soft palate before the officers got there. I think he inserted the probe before the officers got there. They walked in and saw the probe, then he took it out. QUESTION: So you think he may have drilled a hole in the back of the head to be able to put the probe through? CLARKE: I think the bullet went up through Mr. Foster's tongue into the top of his head, and fractured his head. So Rolla said "I felt a mushy spot, I thought the head was fractured, and I thought the bullet was still in the head." He's right on all three counts is what I think. QUESTION: OK, Bryant is also named because in his memo to . . . CLARKE: There is a record of his active participation in the cover-up. QUESTION: Who else besides Bryant are you naming? CLARKE: There's Scott Jeffrey Bickett. Scott bashed Patrick's car in with a tire iron the night before his second FBI interview. One of the appendices at the back of Evans-Pritchard's "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton" is a computer printout of Scott Jeffrey Bickett, showing that he was employed by the Department of Defense. [3] He holds what is called an "active SCI" security clearance. SCI stands for "Sensitive Compartmented Information." That's a top U.S. government security clearance. So this malicious attack on Patrick's car, which Bickett later confessed to . . . QUESTION: He did? To whom did he confess? CLARKE: Coincidentally, to the U.S. Park Police who were handling the case. They said they couldn't trace the license plate number. Luckily, there was a limousine driver not too far away who witnessed the whole thing, who wrote it down. QUESTION: Did he tell them why he bashed the car? CLARKE: No. So, the Park Police showed up and the limo driver gave the license number to both the Park Police and to Patrick. A week went by and they said they couldn't find the guy. So a private investigator was hired on October 18, 1995, and he found Bickett in one day. The Park Police then interviewed Bickett and he confessed. This incident was pretty damned coincidental. It was the night before Patrick's second interview. Patrick had two interviews. The first one was April 15, 1994, when FBI agent Larry Monroe was leaning on him trying to get him to admit the car he saw in the Fort Marcy Park parking lot was Vince Foster's car. Patrick had another interview about 3 weeks later. The incident where his car was bashed in was the night before the second interview. He actually had a confrontation with this guy, Scott Bickett. Either they were trying to give Patrick a hint, or they were trying to shake him up. His car was a 1974 refurbished Peugeot. It was just beautiful. It was Patrick's only possession. They bashed the shit out of it right in front of the Vietnam Memorial. Patrick and his girlfriend were showing another couple the memorial. QUESTION: When did you learn of Bickett? CLARKE: When Evans-Pritchard's book came out. QUESTION: Why did you not name Bickett as a defendant to begin with? CLARKE: Because we filed suit a year before that book came out. The next new defendant I call "John Doe FBI Laboratory Technician." I'll tell you briefly some of the things they hid. Remember, Beyer supposedly found ball shaped smokeless powder on the body. Well, Remington manufactured the cartridges found in the official death gun. They were .38 HVL, which stands for high velocity ammunition. Remington has never used ball smokeless powder in the manufacture of that ammunition. QUESTION: So the supposed finding of the ball shaped powder on the soft palate by Beyer is impossible in any event? CLARKE: I think Foster had ball powder on him, but none of it was in the mouth. QUESTION: Does the presence of this particular type of powder give you any indication what the murder weapon actually was? CLARKE: Yes. It's used by Winchester .22's, a small caliber gun. QUESTION: Whoa!! CLARKE: Yes, it's consistent with reloads also. QUESTION: Professional hit men are known to reload their ammunition. CLARKE: That category is included. QUESTION: Although it seems unlikely to me that anyone would want to reload .22 cartridges, unless they wanted very special properties. But a professional might. CLARKE: Right, for up close work. The FBI lab also hid the length of the powder burns on Mr. Foster's hands. They did not describe the length of those powder burns. QUESTION: Is the official story that he had one hand over the cylinder of the gun as he pulled the trigger? CLARKE: Right. And you would get a blast from the front cylinder gap. QUESTION: Well, on a revolver there are gaps between the cylinder and the frame at both the front and the back of the cylinder, where some blast might escape. CLARKE: You could get a little bit from the back, but these powder burns on his hands were definitely from the front cylinder gap, and they are huge. As the blast escapes from the cylinder gap, it is blocked at the top and the bottom by the frame of the gun. So it comes out in a triangular shape on both sides from the front cylinder gap, which is at the back of the barrel. As the blast flees from the gun, it expands, so the triangle gets larger the farther it is from the point of the blast. If your hand is over the cylinder when you pull the trigger, you won't get gunshot residue on the part of your hand that is above the gun, or the part that is below the gun. The top and bottom of the gun frame will protect those parts of your hand. Now, if you wrap your hand around the gun at the front of the cylinder, according to our measurements, you will have two 2-inch burns on your hand, one on each side of the cylinder. QUESTION: Exactly right. CLARKE: Let's suppose you got somebody else to pull the trigger. You take both hands and wrap them around the gun, but not touching the gun. With your hands out like that, instead of 2 inches long the burns are going to be 6 to 7 inches long. The gunshot residue deposit is shortened by closeness of your hand to the gun and lengthened by its distance. Now, we calculate that Mr. Foster had a 3-inch burn on the left-hand side, so he was not touching the gun there. QUESTION: OK. CLARKE: On the right hand side he had over a 5-inch burn. QUESTION: So his hands were not touching the gun? CLARKE: On neither side. He was not holding that gun. QUESTION: What's he doing with his hands around but not touching a gun that goes off? CLARKE: Think about it. He's in a defensive posture. The gun went off when his hand was two inches from it on the right hand side and on the left side maybe a half an inch. He was grabbing for the gun when it went off! QUESTION: How do you know how long the burns were on each hand? CLARKE: We can approximate the size of his hand. He was 6 feet 4, and he could palm a basketball palm down in each hand. Anybody who can do that has a 6-inch index finger. QUESTION: How do you know the length of the burns? CLARKE: We have sources in the record that tell us the burn began at the last phalange, which is about an inch long. It extended down into the web area of his hand. From the beginning of the last phalange to the web area would have been 5 inches. If the burn extended into the web area, that means it was more than 5 inches. One of the reports -- Simonello's -- says it is also to the thumb. Simonello removed the weapon from Mr. Foster's right hand. He said there was gunpowder on the thumb. That means the hand could not have been in contact with the weapon when it went off. QUESTION: Was his stain also the ball shaped powder? CLARKE: We don't know because it is residue. QUESTION: Is it possible that someone put the .38 in his hand and shot the gun to make it look like he shot it? CLARKE: No. QUESTION: But the .38 had been fired, had it not? It had a spent casing in it didn't it? CLARKE: One spent casing and one unspent casing. QUESTION: Did they do a test of the gun to see if it had been fired recently? CLARKE: I don't know. I do know that they didn't test it until after they closed the investigation. Did you know that? QUESTION: No. Good grief. CLARKE: In fact the letter requesting testing was not written until the 11th, but the case was officially closed on the 5th. A week later they decided to send it out for testing. That was the official FBI/Park Police investigation, which was 16 days long. QUESTION: Why have you added "John Doe FBI lab Technician" to your suit? CLARKE: Because of the FBI report. He says the gunpowder residues are consistent with Foster having fired the weapon. We made a model of the weapon. You cannot pull the trigger with your hands in the position relative the gun that Foster's must have been. His right hand was 2 inches away from it, and the left hand about one half inch". The only way he could have been holding it would be with his hands around it and away from it. You can't pull the trigger like that. Even if he could reach the trigger, he couldn't have pulled it -- it was too far away. QUESTION: Was he supposed to have pulled the trigger with his thumb? CLARKE: Yes. QUESTION: So you name the FBI lab technician because he falsified the documents, in your opinion? CLARKE: Yes. QUESTION: What you are talking about here -- you've said it yourself more than once -- is a conspiracy that involves many, many people. CLARKE: Many people, but less than some might imagine. QUESTION: It's hard for the average person to contemplate that all of these disparate people would be involved to falsify the record. Why would they do that? CLARKE: They were evidently covering up an apparent homicide. I don't know why they did it, why he was killed, or who killed him. QUESTION: What's the next step in your suit? CLARKE: The judge still has not ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss. The two FBI agents and one other named defendant who was served in the case earlier filed a motion to dismiss. We argued that in January. The judge has not ruled on it. It's a good thing, too, because we have been going through thousands of pages of records pulling all of this stuff out. QUESTION: I won't ask you if you trust the judge. CLARKE: You can say that I trust him because I do. QUESTION: What is his name? CLARKE: John Garrett Penn. QUESTION: Which court is the case in? CLARKE: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. QUESTION: Has he been there for a while? CLARKE: He's been there for a long time. I tried a case before him in 1989. QUESTION: I suppose the next step is he will make a ruling about whether to dismiss. And if he does not dismiss, he will then look at your amended complaint. Is that right? CLARKE: He really has to look at the amended complaint before ruling. Part of the argument of the motion to dismiss is our supposed failure to particularize the allegation of conspiracy. Our amended complaint is a lot more particular. So he would not want to dismiss the suit without looking at this. QUESTION: You think at this point with the evidence you have presented you have overcome that objection? CLARKE: Yes, I thought I overcame it back then, but even more so now. QUESTION: How is Patrick Knowlton doing? CLARKE: He's doing very well. QUESTION: Is he getting on with his life? CLARKE: We are both involved in this up to our armpits, so this is his life for the time being. QUESTION: I know you are getting along partly on donations, so give us the address to contribute to this cause. CLARKE: The Knowlton Legal Fund, 1730 K Street NW, Suite 304, Washington, D.C. 20006. Donations are not tax deductible. Notes 1. For more information on the Knowlton lawsuit, see an earlier Washington Weekly interview with John Clarke at: http://www.federal.com/feb16-98/Foster. 2. The amended complaint in the lawsuit is available at: http://www.aim.org/special/knowlton.htm 3. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, "The Secret Life of Bill Clinton," p. 416. Wesley Phelan may be reached at wphlen(a)mtco.com Published in the Oct. 26, 1998 issue of The Washington Weekly. Copyright © 1998 The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact. ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

IP: Commerce FOIA Fails - Department Orders New Search
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:40:42 -0500 (EST) To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com From: softwar(a)us.net (CharlesSmith) Subject: IP: Commerce FOIA Fails - Department Orders New Search Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: softwar(a)us.net (CharlesSmith) Softwar is pleased to announce the successful challenge and appeal of a failed U.S. Commerce Department Freedom of Information request. On Oct. 13, 1998 the Commerce Department returned materials responsive to a request on the Computer Systems Policy Project or CSPP. The material returned included a note from the Commerce Department stating that this was the "final" and "complete" response. However, the Commerce Department did not include several documents previously obtained from both Commerce and the National Security Council (NSC) on the CSPP. Thus, the Commerce Department response was neither "final" nor "complete. Commerce officials who reviewed the Softwar appeal have agreed the search was incomplete and did violate the Freedom of Information Act. Commerce officials have notified me that they are now ordering the entire agency re-do the search. In fact, all materials from 1994 and 1995 on the CSPP were missing from the Commerce response, including public domain reports written by the CSPP. The public domain reports were discovered in a previous unrelated FOIA search of Ron Brown's files. The 1994 and 1995 reports included the name and address of Podesta Associates as the official contact for CSPP. In 1995 Bill Reinsch wrote a memo to Ron Brown detailing a secret meeting with the CSPP, a group of computer CEOs, consisting of Apple, AT&T, Compaq, Cray, Silicon Graphics, Digital Equipment Corporation, Tandem, Sun and Unisys. You can see parts of that secret meeting memo at http://www.softwar.net/cspp.html In 1995 the CSPP lobby group was led by Ken Kay, an employee of Tony Podesta, the brother of White House advisor John Podesta. In 1995, John Podesta worked at the White House running encryption and super computer policy. During the same period of time, the CSPP and Clinton officials began holding a series of classified briefings on encryption and super computer export policy. Part of the classified materials given to CSPP members included secret designs for software and hardware products containing "back-doors" to allow unrestricted monitoring by the government. John Podesta is now Clinton's Chief of Staff. ================================================================== FOIA appeal as follows - SOFTWAR 7707 Whirlaway Drive Midlothian, VA 23112 October 16, 1998 ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR ADMINISTRATION ROOM 5898-C U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 14TH AND CONSTITUTION AVE. N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20230 RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL - CRRIF 98-166 Dear Sir/Madam: Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, and to the regulations of the Commerce Department, CDR (citation to departmental regulations, obtainable from committee print index), I hereby appeal the Commerce Department denial of my FOIA request dated February 10, 1998 for all information on "the Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP)" (Please see example #1 - FOIA request of February 10, 1998.) 1. The Commerce Department denial stated in the reply dated, October 13, 1998, that it has completed all searches and returned the "FINAL response" for the FOIA request dated February 10, 1998 for all information on "the Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP)". (Please see example #2 Commerce response dated Oct. 13, 1998). The Commerce Department statement that it has completed all searches and returned a "FINAL" result is incorrect because responsive documents from the Commerce Department were NOT RETURNED. 2. Several U.S. Commerce Department documents previously obtained through the Freedom of Information Act were NOT returned by the Commerce Department in response to the specific FOIA request dated February 10, 1998 for all information on "the Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP)". 3. I have attached part of one such example, two pages from a U.S. Commerce Department memo for Secretary Ron Brown This document is clearly responsive to my FOIA request of Feb. 10, 1998 because the subject material is a meeting between the Secretary of the Commerce and CSPP members. (Please see example #3, Memo from William Reinsch to Ron Brown dated June 1, 1995 - CSPP MEETING). 4. I have obtained several responsive documents that are sourced from the U.S. Commerce Department and were NOT discovered nor returned by the Department. The document cited in item #3 above is only a single example. 5. The Commerce Department has performed an INCOMPLETE search and is in violation of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552. The Commerce Department has not complied with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552, because it is unable or unwilling to perform complete FOIA requests. Please reply by November 10, 1998. If the appeal is denied, please specify the section of the Freedom of Information Act which is being relied on as a legal basis for the denial. Thank you. Charles R. Smith ================================================================ 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR http://www.softwar.net softwar(a)softwar.net Pcyphered SIGNATURE: BCD2F14ABC8673D9A29401CC86277FA620FE6A979B822B3120EEFA251BD8CB76 2AA47721F2F9ADAC14A0E2D38AB43FADD718819DB7D9874A50724ACB0B0E7E7C 6D7A633ED076B31B ================================================================ SOFTWAR EMAIL NEWSLETTER 10/28/1998 *** to unsubscribe reply with "unsubscribe" as subject *** ================================================================ **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **************************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

What's Up!
by hot248＠bigfoot.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<html> <body> To experience the hottest, hardest, female sex site on the net: CLICK HERE FOR HOT WOMEN! Or if you prefer some hot, gay male action: CLICK HERE FOR GAY MEN This is an unsoliscited e-mail of an adult nature. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings. </body> </html> To experience the hottest, hardest, female sex site on the net: CLICK HERE FOR HOT WOMEN http://village.fortunecity.com/degeneres/567/is/ Or if you prefer some hot, gay male action: CLICK HERE FOR GAY MEN http://village.fortunecity.com/degeneres/567/hc/ This is an unsoliscited e-mail of an adult nature. If you wish to be removed from this advertiser's future mailings, please reply with the subject "Remove" and this software will automatically block you from their future mailings.

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED THU OCT 29 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + DREAM GIRLS + BLACK NYMPHOS + WET DREAMS + HORNY OLD LADIES + JUST BLONDES NAKED + XBABES + HOT ROD + HOIHOI GIRLS + SMUT FOR FREE + MISS TEASE FREE XXX PLAYHOUSE + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/13713.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/10549.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/23736.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/21072.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/32445.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- If you haven't visited STUFFED in the last few days, you're in for a real treat. It's faster than ever before and now, as a subscriber, you get 35 FREE new pics every day, plus over 100 more at carefully selected FREE sites we link to. This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

RE: November 1st
by submit1500＠mailexcite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We'll Submit Your Site To Over 1,500 Search Engines, Directories, & Links Pages For Special Price of Only $39.95 !!! *** Order by November 1st and receive *** *** 275 Money-Making Reports for FREE!! *** *** Immediately Increase Your Sites Exposure *** For Less Than 3 Cents Each We Will Submit Your Web Site To Over 1,500 Of The Net's Hottest Search Engines, Directories & Links Pages. You know as well as we that your time is best utilized managing your business. For just $39.95 we'll take the work load off your back instead of you trying to do it manually which can take hours upon hours and even days to do. ******************************** Here's how easy it is to order. ******************************** Print out this email. Then FAX the below ORDER FORM to: 1-860-456-8850 (ORDER BEFORE NOVEMBER 1ST TO GET 275 MONEY-MAKING REPORTS) ----- ORDER FORM ------ YOUR NAME ____________________________________ MAILING ADDRESS __________________________________ CITY ______________________________ STATE _____________________________ ZIP CODE _________________________ EMAIL ___________________ THE WEBSITE URL YOU WISH TO SUBMIT http://______________________________ ******************** PAYMENT INFORMATION: ******************** Provide Following Credit Card Payment Information: (your card will be charged once for $39.95) NAME ON CARD _______________________________ Type of Card: MASTERCARD VISA (circle one) CARD NUMBER ___________________________ EXP DATE ___________________ YOUR SIGNATURE ________________________________ You may also pay by check by attaching it to this form, made payable to: 1,500 SUBMISSION SERVICE COMPANY ******************************************** After we receive your order we will immediately submit your website!! YOU WILL BE GIVEN SECRET URL TO RETRIEVE REPORTS!! ******************************************** ----- THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDER ------ 1,500 SUBMISSION SERVICE COMPANY FAX 1-860-456-8850

1 0

No Subject
by informant＠freeyellow.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

10/29/98 Y2K Solution! 8 Pine Circle Dr., Silicon Valley, Calif. OTC Company "TCFG" 21 st. Century Frontier Group has through several members of their administrative research department leaked vital information about their companies efforts. Everyone was tight lipped and interviews were refused, and through un-named sources we have learned that the technology and software solution are in the process of being patented! In over 1640 trials, using various data systems the use of the new technology and software solved the Y2K problem 100% of the time. This small publicly traded company "TCFG" which is just 3 years old is through various sources now negotiating with the "Big Boys"! "TCFG" the letters to look for...

1 0

No Subject
by watcher＠freeyellow.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

10/28/98 Y2K Solution! 8 Pine Circle Dr., Silicon Valley, Calif. OTC Company "TCFG" 21 st. Century Frontier Group has through several members of their administrative research department leaked vital information about their companies efforts... Everyone was tight lipped and interviews were refused, and through un-named sources we have learned that the technology and software solution are in the process of being patented! In over 1640 trials, using various data systems the use of the new technology and software solved the Y2K problem 100% of the time. This small publicly traded company "TCFG" which is just 3 years old is through various sources now negotiating with the "Big Boys"! "TCFG" the letters to look for.....

1 0

RE: Soccer Moms?
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Petro said: > I am currently in the process of catching up on C-punks, > did this get answered to your satisfaction? And more :-) Ken

1 0

RE: UK police chase crooks on CCTV (fwd)
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> So when are they going to arrest Gorby and Fidel? They killed more people. Castro I assume the moment he steps foot in the USA other than on a diplomatic mission. I've no idea about Gorbachev, I assume as a KGB official he was party to the same sort of behaviour as Pinochet was, but when he got to the top at least he didn't make things worse. Anyway, what about Oliver North? And since when did our inability to catch all criminals stop us prosecuting the ones we can catch? It looks like Pinochet will probably get released in England because of the vile, immoral, doctrine of "sovereign immunity", i.e. that people in office don't get prosecuted for crimes committed as part of the job. But it was still fun to see him caught. The real reason Pinochet ought to have the wind put up him is exactly *because* what he did seemed to have worked and was taken to be worth doing by some people who should know better. Everybody knows that the CPSU or the Nazis or Bokassa or Idi Amin or the Ba'athists are or were tyrants who ruined their countries and lot more besides. The very fact that some people who once had political credibility, like Thatcher or Bush, support Pinochet is exactly the reason why he should be tried. We need to draw a line between tolerable and intolerable government and put his lot on the other side of it. You have to know what the threats to liberty are. Old Soviet-style "Communism" is hardly on the menu in any European or North American country these days and out-and-out looney Naziism isn't either (but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep our eyes open) Our direct problems are interfering governments, bad measures taken for good ends, corporate power over private individuals, business power over workers and customers, and "law and order" (or the "War against Drugs/Paedophiles/Communists/Dangerous Dogs/Liberals/Scroungers" or whatever). Thin end of the wedge, slippery slope, foot in the door and all that. And even if Pinochet's ends my have been good his means were as bad as they come. His sort of ultra-nationalist, militarist authoritarian government that pays lip service to libertarianism whilst using brutal methods to enforce conformity, obedience and uniformity is still a threat today. It bubbles under the surface in the blue-rinse wing of the British Tory Party, and is quite explicity the line of the French Front National (the British National Front are genuine Nazis, and pretty marginalised, but the FN get real votes in France) And when they get the upper hand then the cattle-prod wielders and the toe-nail-pullers and the death squads come out of the woodwork. Margaret Thatcher wasn't any kind of fascist, but the differences are quantitative, not qualitative. She wasn't so far from Pinochet, Pinochet wasn't so far from Franco and Franco wasn't so far from hell. Ken Brown (whose bosses not only have nothing to do with this note & wouldn't approve of it if they did, but probably voted for some of the people the first draft ranted against)

2 1

RE: airline id
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Various anonymes and Joel O'Connor discussed sabotaging trains - presumably in order to force >>you flew to. Even with trains, all's it will take is one bomb and >> youbetter believe security will be pumped up as high as it is >> with airlines. > Naaah, you pull rail-spikes to get trains, no big ba-da-boom required. > And it does happen. > > Actually you just put something on the line. It happens all the time. If a fast train hits it there can be big problems. Even a small obstacle (like a plastic rubbish bag with rubbish in it) will cause a train to stop if it is seen. (Trains can't swerve). That just causes inconvenience, unless of course you put something conductive down that shorts out the power - that has a (small) chance of causing a serious accident and a (big) chance of disrupting all rail traffic for miles around for hours. A sort of occasionally fatal denial of service attack. It appeals to 14 year olds. You too can make 75,000 people late for work, cause 30,000 pounds worth of damage and possibly kill a train driver. In fact it is so easy to do (all you need to find is a bridge over the line & a time when no-one is looking, and heave over a stolen supermarket trolley or an old fridge door from a dump, or any other bit of metal rubbish) it is almost surprising that it doesn't happen more often. IIRC, the IRA never tried to disrupt train traffic into or out of London by putting things on the lines, always by bomb scares in stations. There was one real bomb on a train, went off just after it arrived at Victoria, killed a couple of people. It was a train I regularly used, although I usually travelled later in the day. It got much harder to put bombs on trains, or in stations, after that. The main fixes were removing the litter bins from around stations (it took the IRA to teach the messy English to clean up after themselves) and getting people to report unclaimed packages and then evacuating trains when they were found. If you leave yout bag on the train they stop the train. This makes people angry. So there is social pressure to not leave packages lying around on, or near, trains. So if you want to plant a bomb on a crowded train and not get blown up yourself you have a problem. On trains, unlike planes, you keep your luggage with you. Also people *like* trains. They are cute. Even in America you have hordes of trainspotters and steam enthusiasts and model-builders and all the rest. It always amazes me that bookshops have more shelves of hobbyist books about trains than about cars, but only about 15% of the population regularly travel by train and about 60% by car. (In England - I guess in the USA that's more like 5% and 85% - and before you say that that last figure is too low remember there are an awful lot more disabled, vey old, very sick or imprisoned people than most of us notice - I guess that car users in the USA include just about everyone capable of using a car, with the possible exception of the inhabitants of some parts of very big cities) Back to the point - the reason you need id to travel on a plane is because people are scared of planes. Especially they are scared of them falling out of the sky, depressurising or catching fire. When something goes wrong with a plane everybody can die very quickly. When an accident happens to a train it usually just comes to a halt. They don't have heaps of fuel on them (except if you are on an line that is still back in the diesel age - and even then the fuel is usually all in one location, separated from the passengers) You mostly don't die whan a train crashes, or even blows up. Repressive laws get popular support from people who are scared. People are scared of plane crashes so they put up with -no, they mostly applaud or even demand - treatment they wouldn't stand for anywhere else. People aren't scared of trains. Nobody's scared of cryptography - well, nobody wh hasn't received the NSA corporate injection - but some peope are scared of drugs/paedophiles/terrorists etc, so thats the way in for the jackboots. To oppose it we need to reduce fear. Ken Brown (who prefers bicycles to trains but had to use the train to get to work today because of a broken spoke he is incapable of fixing. He only does software) > ---------- > From: Anonymous[SMTP:nobody@replay.com] > Sent: 28 October 1998 17:36 > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: airline id > > At 12:43 PM 10/27/98 -0800, Joel O'Connor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

3 2

RE: airline id
by Joel O'Connor 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Interesting, I like that. It makes sense. Bill Clinton knows all about putting things in fromt of trains, like the two kids who found his secret cocain dumping ground in Arkansas when he was governor, so he dumped their two bodies on a train track and the train (spotting them, like you said Ken) tried to stop but hit them. Further investigation found that they had died of a massive hemorage, but Clinton's honest people told the public that they had "fallen asleep on the railroad tracks and were accidently hit by a train." Convenient, if I've ever noticed. I guess the thing with trains is that they are fun and a nice ride, but modern societies push to get there quickly escalates about as fast as inflation, so the demand to fly is becmoming more popular as time goes on. I think in the future, the only need for trains will be for shipping us cpunks off to the concentration camps, seeing as most are only accessible by train or helicopter anyway. We'll see though. ---"Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1(a)texaco.com> wrote: > > Various anonymes and Joel O'Connor discussed sabotaging trains - > presumably in order to force > > >>you flew to. Even with trains, all's it will take is one bomb and > >> youbetter believe security will be pumped up as high as it is > >> with airlines. > > > Naaah, you pull rail-spikes to get trains, no big ba-da-boom required. > > And it does happen. > > > > > Actually you just put something on the line. It happens all the time. > If a fast train hits it there can be big problems. > > Even a small obstacle (like a plastic rubbish bag with rubbish in it) > will cause a train to stop if it is seen. (Trains can't swerve). That > just causes inconvenience, unless of course you put something conductive > down that shorts out the power - that has a (small) chance of causing a > serious accident and a (big) chance of disrupting all rail traffic for > miles around for hours. A sort of occasionally fatal denial of service > attack. It appeals to 14 year olds. You too can make 75,000 people late > for work, cause 30,000 pounds worth of damage and possibly kill a train > driver. > > In fact it is so easy to do (all you need to find is a bridge over the > line & a time when no-one is looking, and heave over a stolen > supermarket trolley or an old fridge door from a dump, or any other bit > of metal rubbish) it is almost surprising that it doesn't happen more > often. IIRC, the IRA never tried to disrupt train traffic into or out of > London by putting things on the lines, always by bomb scares in > stations. There was one real bomb on a train, went off just after it > arrived at Victoria, killed a couple of people. It was a train I > regularly used, although I usually travelled later in the day. It got > much harder to put bombs on trains, or in stations, after that. The main > fixes were removing the litter bins from around stations (it took the > IRA to teach the messy English to clean up after themselves) and getting > people to report unclaimed packages and then evacuating trains when they > were found. If you leave yout bag on the train they stop the train. > This makes people angry. So there is social pressure to not leave > packages lying around on, or near, trains. So if you want to plant a > bomb on a crowded train and not get blown up yourself you have a > problem. On trains, unlike planes, you keep your luggage with you. > > Also people *like* trains. They are cute. Even in America you have > hordes of trainspotters and steam enthusiasts and model-builders and all > the rest. It always amazes me that bookshops have more shelves of > hobbyist books about trains than about cars, but only about 15% of the > population regularly travel by train and about 60% by car. (In England - > I guess in the USA that's more like 5% and 85% - and before you say that > that last figure is too low remember there are an awful lot more > disabled, vey old, very sick or imprisoned people than most of us notice > - I guess that car users in the USA include just about everyone capable > of using a car, with the possible exception of the inhabitants of some > parts of very big cities) > > Back to the point - the reason you need id to travel on a plane is > because people are scared of planes. Especially they are scared of them > falling out of the sky, depressurising or catching fire. When something > goes wrong with a plane everybody can die very quickly. When an > accident happens to a train it usually just comes to a halt. They don't > have heaps of fuel on them (except if you are on an line that is still > back in the diesel age - and even then the fuel is usually all in one > location, separated from the passengers) You mostly don't die whan a > train crashes, or even blows up. > > Repressive laws get popular support from people who are scared. People > are scared of plane crashes so they put up with -no, they mostly > applaud or even demand - treatment they wouldn't stand for anywhere > else. People aren't scared of trains. > > Nobody's scared of cryptography - well, nobody wh hasn't received the > NSA corporate injection - but some peope are scared of > drugs/paedophiles/terrorists etc, so thats the way in for the jackboots. > To oppose it we need to reduce fear. > > > Ken Brown > > (who prefers bicycles to trains but had to use the train to get to work > today because of a broken spoke he is incapable of fixing. He only does > software) > > > ---------- > > From: Anonymous[SMTP:nobody@replay.com] > > Sent: 28 October 1998 17:36 > > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > > Subject: airline id > > > > At 12:43 PM 10/27/98 -0800, Joel O'Connor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > == Ogre bounces like sonar. . .Peace. Ogre _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Shuffling (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:10:08 -0800 > From: Alex Alten <Alten(a)home.com> > Subject: Re: Shuffling > The concept of swapping to get a random string of bits is very interesting. > >From what I understand when one shuffles a deck of 52 cards 7 or more times > the card order becomes unpredictable e.g. random. Only if it is a 'fair' shuffle. There are poker players I've met who could put a given card anywhere in the deck after 4-5 shuffles. > The shuffle must be > what is called a "near perfect" shuffle. Perfect for who? Idealy the 'perfect' shuffle (if I understand your meaning of perfect) would be for each card in each deck-half to interleave 1-to-1. This does not produce random anything, it does make it very hard for people to count cards, which is why you shuffle - not to create a necessarily random ordering of the cards, just so mis-ordered nobody can remember what the sequence was and predict reliably what the sequence will be. This is incredibly important in games like poker or rummie where the cards pile up and players can see the sequence (and if they can remember it use it). This is also the reason that all games involving shuffled cards strictly call for a neutral party to shuffle and deal, falling back to the players only for 'friendly' games. Really smart 'amateur' players as you call them also make sure that he who deals is not he who anties first. I've never quite understood where this 'shuffle equal random' theory so many people have comes from (historicaly). But it is fun to play against them because they also (usualy) only shuffle the cards once to twice before a deal. Even un-even shuffles aren't prevention from short-sequence card counters. I impliment this when I play poker, it's helpfull to figure out how many cards to draw because it's possible to estimate the 'distance' between a short set of cards (eg a royal flush) after the shuffle. > In other words the cards can't > strictly alternate from each hand (with a half deck each), but must be > slightly random, in the sense that sometimes 2 or 3 cards may drop from a > hand before a card drops from the other hand. Unfortunately, professional croupie's don't practice for this. They practice for a perfect inter-leave. > An amateur shuffle, like > the one I perform, where the cards clump as they drop, may require 100's > of iterations before the order becomes totally unpredictable. BTW, if > I remember correctly the number of people in the world who can execute a > perfect shuffle at a professional rate (about 8 times a minute?) > consistently is somewhat less than 30. 8 time a minute? That's a pretty slow shuffle. Where did you get this number from? A really quick proffessional shuffle doesn't take 3 seconds. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

update.399 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 10:48:06 -0500 (EST) > From: physnews(a)aip.org (AIP listserver) > Subject: update.399 > NONLOCALITY GETS MORE REAL. "Bell's Inequalities," the > set of mathematical relations that would rule out the notion that > distant quantum particles exert influences on each other at > seemingly instantaneous rates, have now been violated over record > large distances, with record high certainty, and with the elimination > of an important loophole in three recent experiments, further > solidifying the notion of "spooky action at a distance" in quantum > particles. At the Optical Society of America meeting in Baltimore > earlier this month, Paul Kwiat (kwiat(a)lanl.gov) of Los Alamos and > his colleagues announced that they produced an ultrabright source > of photon pairs for Bell's inequality experiments; they went on to > verify the violation of Bell's inequalities to a record degree of > certainty (preprint at p23.lanl.gov/agw/2crystal.pdf) Splitting a > single photon of well-defined energy into a pair of photons with > initially undefined energies, and sending each photon through a > fiber-optic network to detectors 10 km apart, researchers in > Switzerland (Wolfgang Tittel, Univ. Geneva, > wolfgang.tittel(a)physics.unige.ch) showed that determining the > energy for one photon by measuring it had instantaneously > determined the energy of its neighbor 10 km away--a record set by > the researchers last year but now demonstrated in an improved > version of the original experiment. (Tittel et al., Physical Review > Letters, 26 October 1998.) A University of Innsbruck group > performed Bell measurements with detectors that randomly switched > between settings rapidly enough to eliminate the "locality loophole," > which posited that one detector might somehow send a signal to the > other detector at light or sub-light speeds to affect its reading. > (Weihs et al., upcoming paper in Phys. Rev. Lett., website at > http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/c7/c704/qo/photon/_bellexp/) > TUMOR GROWTH CAN BE FRACTAL. A curve is fractal if when > CORRECTIONS. Update 397---Among nuclei for which gamma ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: IP: Crypt Wars, UK-Style
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <199810290400.UAA14769(a)netcom13.netcom.com> some1 wrote: : CRYPT WARS, UK-STYLE : UK's Privacy International has awarded the Department of Trade and : Industry a Big Brother award for its contribution to invading privacy. The : DTI wants all companies offering encrypted services to be licensed, which : means using a third party holding keys to the user's encryption code. : Encryption licensed outside the UK will not be recognised, and thus would : not be protected by law. And only the recommendation of senior police is : needed to get a key - users aren't allowed to know if their key has been : given to the police. More Big Brother awards at http://www.privacy.org/pi/ Hmm would like to see on which EC directive/law they base this exclusion of 'foreign' (ie EC) TTP's. -- Alex de Joode | International CryptoRunners | http://www.replay.com 'A little paranoia can lengthen your life'

1 0

IP: A nationhood under seige: Is the nation obsolete?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Holy shit. The Fourth Estate figures it out. Of course, the answer to the question, "Omigawd! There's gonna be no nation-states, dude!", is, the same answer to the question "Egad! The Church has no more earthly power!" Which is, "So?". :-). Mort a le infame, as Voltaire used to say... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 06:41:34 -0500 From: Richard Sampson <rjsa(a)sprintmail.com> Organization: Unknown Organization MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com" <ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com> Subject: IP: A nationhood under seige: Is the nation obsolete? Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: Richard Sampson <rjsa(a)sprintmail.com> A nationhood under seige: For 350 years, the world has been governed by the pri A nationhood under seige: For 350 years, the world has been governed by the principle of national sovereignty, but the new global economy respects no national borders, laws, or interests. Is the nation obsolete?< Three and a half centuries after the nations of the world won the power of self-rule, a new force has come along to erode that power and undermine the democratic rights of their citizens. That force is the global economy, which is relocating the economic decisions that frame the lives of citizens far beyond the reach of the voters and their voice. There's a sort of cruel historical irony here, that at the very moment when liberal democracy has finally triumphed over all rival systems of government, the power of markets - the other half of the post-Cold War triumph - has come along to leech that democracy of much of its meaning. This weekend is the 350th anniversary of the Peace of Westphalia, a treaty signed in 1648 by the Holy Roman Empire with France and Sweden and, especially, with the princes of the various German principalities. This treaty not only ended the Thirty Years' War, but also severely limited the ability of the Empire and the church of Rome to intervene in the affairs of the German principalities. In other words, Westphalia proclaimed the sovereignty of the principalities, the right of the princes to rule their territories without outside interference. This idea of sovereignty has echoed down the three and a half centuries since then and is the basis both of self-government and of international relations. Considering all the massacres, pogroms, persecutions, gulags and holocausts of the past 350 years, this principle of sovereignty leaves something to be desired. But it's what we have, the magnetic pole of the international system. More important for those lucky enough to live in democracies, Westphalia is the basis of democratic self-rule, the idea that the average citizen has a say in the decisions that affects his or her life. Somebody else may make the decisions, but citizens have the right to cast their votes and state their opinions, confident that these vote and opinions will be heard by the decisionmaker who, one way or another, must pay attention. It's this right and this confidence that are vanishing in the face of the global economy, which is the one really new thing under the sun. The reason is that democracy is national and so are its institutions. Governments are national and their power to make and enforce laws is national. The power of the vote is felt at national levels, but not beyond. But the nation-based industrial economy that underwrote the growth of democracy is being replaced by a global economy, powered by global capital markets and global communications, answering to the needs and demands of global corporations and investors who can and do ignore frontiers. In short, an extremely important part of public life _ the economy _ is going global in a way that politics and government have not, and so is moving beyond any kind of democratic control. As Americans and the rest of the world have learned in the past year, impersonal global markets can and do cast instant judgments on entire societies, dictate the spending decisions of government and unravel the social contracts that used to bind corporations with their employees and their societies. Peter Drucker, the founder of modern management, has written that we are in an ''age of social transformation,'' one of those historical eras that happen ''every few hundred years,'' when, ''within a few short decades, society rearranges itself _ its worldview; its basic values: its social and political structure: its arts: its key institutions.'' Such transformations, like the global economy itself, are not innately evil forces. Instead, they are amoral but immensely powerful movements that change civilizations. But all such movements are created by humans and potentially controllable by humans, for good or for ill. A century after the Industrial Revolution, societies tamed the economic forces generated by this revolution and turned them into the market democracy that enhanced the past 50 years of Western history. No such taming of the Global Revolution _ or even a debate on how to do it _ has begun yet. The old economy was built on a national consensus that economies exist for societies, not the other way around. Over the past half-century, the democracies created social markets _ capitalist structures that insisted the companies share the cost of citizenship. Tax laws required companies to pay their fair share to the places where they made their money. Other laws gave rights to unions, protected worker safety and the environment, and mandated good health and pension plans. Companies accepted these laws, however grudgingly, if only because it cost them no competitive edge: all their rivals, subject to the same laws, faced the same costs. Now, not only capital markets have escaped into cyberspace, beyond the reach of national regulations. There are about 50,000 global corporations who see the globe as a single market and ignore national borders and regulations. These are no longer multinationals, with most of their operations in one country but with a few foreign branches. The global economy is being driven by global corporations who see the globe as a unit. They have their headquarters in one country, research and development in others, accounting in still another, manufacturing scattered across the world, with sales wherever there are customers. These companies have gone global because, with the advent of global communications, they can. But in the process, they have left behind their old home and its laws. Too often, companies now pay taxes and wages where the rates are lowest and the laws loosest. In many countries, environmental or benefits regulations are nonexistent. Many other countries are willing to waive them for companies that will invest there. In this atmosphere, businesses argue they can no longer afford the social costs imposed on them by society, when their rivals may be operating halfway around the world, in a place where the average wage is $1 per day and environmental laws don't exist. Either, they say, they must be allowed to break the social contract, busting unions and negotiating easier regulations and dumping health and pension plans, or they must go abroad themselves. Often they do both. Good jobs go away and the ones that are left somehow pay less, are more unstable and are less likely to come equipped with pension or health plans. Wolfgang Reinicke, a senior economist at the World Bank, has written that this is an attack on ''internal sovereignty,'' the ability of an elected government to really govern. The laws remain intact, but the ability to enforce them disappears. Government exists but its effectiveness and efficiency are eroded. The economy rolls on, but the public's ability to insist that it benefit society is eroded. Elections are held and votes counted, but the power of that vote to promote particular policies wobbles and wanes. The economic rights won by citizens over the centuries, from collective bargaining to decent wages to job stability to pensions, often depending on the power of national governments to enforce them. As this power withers, so do the rights. Small wonder that government is held in such low esteem these days and politics derided. A government that cannot enforce its own laws is a government fit only for scandals and other sideshows. The main event is going on somewhere else, and neither Washington nor its subjects knows where it is. There oughta be a law, a global one replacing the national laws and bringing this economy back under democratic control. In fact, there are laws, lots of them, with more being written every day, but the voters aren't being asked to help write them. Around the world, bureaucrats, experts, lawyers and lobbyists are writing a new web of global regulations, on stock markets, accounting, banking, investment, even auto safety and drug trials. These talks aren't exactly secret but the government isn't going out of its way to publicize them. They are highly technical and, frankly, pretty boring. But they're important. They're writing the rule book for the 21st Century. New global tax laws haven't been written yet, and environmental or labor regulations are barely a gleam in a bureaucrat's eye. But they'll be written someday, if only because the global economy otherwise will be a jungle. But when they are written, they'll look a lot like the regulations already framed. That is, they will be technical exercises, focused on efficiency and the well-being of corporations, not on democracy or the public health. Nations and corporations have different interests. Nations want to raise the living standards of their citizens, while corporations want to raise their profits. The glory of the past 50 years rests on the creation of the social market, with the drive of capitalism tempered by the needs of society, enabling both to thrive. This 20th-Century thrust has focused on the rights of citizens, as individuals or as classes. The new rule-making focuses on the safety and efficiency of markets and corporations. They are making the world more secure and predictable for investment and trade, which is vital for the creation of an honest market. But it caters to the needs of global actors, not the folks at home. De-regulation nationally is being replaced with re-regulation globally. But in the process, governments are giving away power from national bodies to global institutions. But governments exist by democratic sufferance. These global bodies do not. The growth of the global economy requires global governance. But increasingly, as Reinicke has written, this is turning into ''governance without government,'' public functions wielded by bodies with no public control. Pat Buchanan, the commentator and onetime presidential candidate, has called for a ''new economic nationalism'' that, essentially, calls for derailing the global economy with barriers on trade, limits on immigration and an all-around isolationism that, apart from its basic selfishness, is a national solution to a global problem and, hence, futile. The right answer is to recognize that the global economy exists and won't go away, and to tame and temper it with a new social market, composed of new laws and rules in which the public, for a change, has a voice. For a start, the government should never negotiate new global rules that supersede national rules without making a sort of democratic impact statement on what this will mean to the rights of citizens. This is a ''new economic internationalism'' in which American democratic institutions would cooperate with the democratic institutions of other countries to recapture the sovereignty of both. (This is an adaptation of the Richard W. Leopold Annual Lecture that R.C. Longworth, a Chicago Tribune senior writer, delivered at Northwestern University this month.) KRT PERSPECTIVE is a forum for essays by staff writers from contributing papers. (c) 1998, Chicago Tribune. -0- Visit the Chicago Tribune on America Online (keyword: Tribune) or the Internet Tribune at http://www.chicago.tribune.com/ Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services. AP-NY-10-28-98 0611EST< -0- By R.C. Longworth Chicago Tribune News provided by COMTEX. [!COMMUNITY] [!FINANCE] [!WALL+STREET] [ACCOUNTING] [BANKING] [BOOK] [CONTRACT] [DEMOCRACY] [ECONOMY] [ENVIRONMENT] [FRANCE] [GOVERNMENT] [HEALTH] [IMMIGRATION] [INVESTMENT] [KNS] [LABOR] [MANUFACTURING] [MARKET] [MONEY] [NEWS] [NEWSGRID] [POLITICS] [RATES] [REGULATIONS] [RESEARCH] [SALES] [STANDARDS] [SWEDEN] [TAXES] [TRADE] [TREATY] [UNIONS] [USA] [WAR] [WASHINGTON] [WORLD+BANK] -- ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **************************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Two ISPs Seized Over Usenet Content
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

New York State Attorney General Dennis Vacco, who is running for re-election, is crowing and posturing this morning over having seized two ISPs, Dreamscape in Syracuse, and Buffnet in West Seneca, over the content of the newsgroup alt.binaries.pictures.pre-teen, thus making a small dent in the distribution of "filth" to ignorant citizen-units. A running gag in abpep-t for the last several years has been for newsgroup posters to identify themselves as various faculty belonging to a mythical "Pedo University" when responding to trolls. Vacco believes this imaginary organization to be a "International Child Pornography Ring" which he has broken up. 13 individuals in various countries were also arrested on various child pornography possession, trading, and promotion charges, related to activity in the newsgroup, and 34 are still under "investigation", according to this morning's AP wire. alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pre-teen continues merrily onwards, and is presently discussing the arrests and seizures, minus a few of its regular participants. While the loss of two small ISPs and a dozen or so patrons is unlikely to bring the uncensorable worldwide Usenet to its knees, this appears to be a small first step towards eroding the legal notion that common carriers are immune from liability over Usenet content. exerpts... NEW YORK (AP) -- Authorities say they have broken up an international child pornography ring dubbed ``Pedo University'' in which suspects swapped sexually explicit information, pictures and video online. ... Thirteen people were in custody and more arrests were expected. As many as 34 people were still under investigation. New York state police seized two Internet providers, Dreamscape ISP in Syracuse and Buffnet.net ISP in West Seneca. ... Both allegedly carried Pedo University news groups, a type of electronic bulletin board similar to a chat room. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Re: Shuffling (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: iang(a)cs.berkeley.edu (Ian Goldberg) > Subject: Re: Shuffling (fwd) > Date: 29 Oct 1998 16:16:41 GMT > The "7 times" theorem uses the following model of a shuffle: > > o The deck is cut into two parts, with the number of cards in each piece > binomially distributed (with mean 26, of course). > o The resulting deck is then achieved by having cards fall from one or the > other of the two parts; a card will fall from one of the parts with > probability proportional to the number of cards remaining in the part. The only problem I see with this model, re real card decks, is that the probability for a given card to fall to the top of the shuffled pile isn't related in any way to the number of cards in either stack in a real-world shuffle. It also doesn't address the problem of 'clumping' where a group of cards (ie royal flush) stay together through the shuffling. This is the reason that real dealers try for a 1-for-1 shuffle each time. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Interesting Articles... Micro jet engine for Wearable power?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:03:26 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:50:40 -0500 Organization: Scientific-Atlanta MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Interesting Articles... Micro jet engine for Wearable power? To: "wear-hard(a)haven.org" <wear-hard(a)haven.org> From: Pete Hardie <pete.hardie(a)sciatl.com> Sender: phardie(a)sciatl.com Resent-From: wear-hard(a)haven.org X-Mailing-List: <wear-hard(a)haven.org> archive/latest/5435 X-Loop: wear-hard(a)haven.org Precedence: list Resent-Sender: wear-hard-request(a)haven.org Mark Willis wrote: > single spool turbojet > 12mm OD x 3mm long (Tiny!) Weighs 1 gram... > Rotor speed: 2.4 million rpm > Combustor temp: 1600deg K > Output: 13 grams thrust, or 16W electrical > Fuel: Hydrogen @ 7 grams/hr. > > Fuel for 2-3 hours would fit in a CO2 cylinder sized container or so > <G> They use air bearings, and a *silicon* spool, no nickel metal > sintered exotics here... This little puppy will run a wearable nicely > when it gets to production! (The original is for a small surveillance > aircraft, 16W power budget isn't bad though!) I imagine it puts out > some heat, of course... But that annoying roar and jet of flame..... -- Pete Hardie | Goalie, DVSG Dart Team Scientific Atlanta | Digital Video Services Group | -- Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with subject of "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" to wear-hard-request(a)haven.org Wear-Hard Mailing List Archive (searchable): http://wearables.ml.org --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

No Subject
by concerned＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oct.30th,1998 Y2K Solution! 8 Pine Circle Dr., Silicon Valley, Calif. OTC Company "TCFG" 21 st. Century Frontier Group has through several members of their administrative research department leaked vital information about their companies efforts. Everyone was tight lipped and interviews were refused, and through un-named sources we have learned that the technology and software solution are in the process of being patented! In over 1640 trials, using various data systems the use of the new technology and software solved the Y2K problem 100% of the time. This small publicly traded company "TCFG" which is just 3 years old is through various sources now negotiating with the "Big Boys"! "TCFG" the letters to look for!

1 0

test
by Igor Chudov ＠ home 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test

1 0

Re: Shuffling (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 19:22:52 +0100 > From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> > Subject: Re: Shuffling > For any N greater than two, the random-swap algorithm cannot produce > a perfectly smooth randomization of A[N]. If by 'perfectly smooth randomization of A[N]' you mean that any two members of A[N] have equaly likelyhood to be swapped, and hence any pattern of A[N] members being possible with equal odds then this is incorrect. For that arrangement to be relevant your (P)RNG function must choose any element from 0 to N with equal odds, it's probability curve must be a horizontal line at 1/n for each N. If it ain't you aren't going to randomly shuffle the elements of A[] since each element doesn't have the same odds of being selected in this (or every other) turn. > A perfect randomization of A[N] would give equal probability to each of > the N! (N factorial) possible rearrangements of A. Ah, but there aren't N! rearrangements of A if we are limited to only swapping two elements. There are at best n^2. Allow me to explain... > Each iteration of the random-swap algorithm makes two choices of the N > values to swap. There are N^2 possible ways these two choices could go. Ok, we shoot off our first random number, 1/n. We then shoot off our second random number, also 1/n. The combination is 1/n * 1/n or 1/n^2. Now if we add the stipulation about the i'th and i+1'st numbers not being identical then the odds are 1/n * 1/n-1 (note that this boundary condition is artificial and may in fact be problematic, there is no logical reason to keep i and i+1 from being the same n if we want truly random behaviour). > To calculate the probabilities after an iteration, we try all the N^2 > choices and count how many instances of each arrangement are produced. Huh? What probability are we calculating here, the odds of getting the particular pattern we have now generated? If so that is either 1/n^2 or 1/n(n-1) depending on the boundary condition. > This gives each possible arrangement a probability in the form of > k/N^2, where k of the N^2 choices led to that arrangement. What arrangement, the one we start with before or after the swap? If we start with arrangement I and then swap two elements we get I+1. There are only two ways to get to any particular arrangment. An identical arrangement where we swap i with itself (ignoring the potential boundary condition) and the arrangement where the l'th and j'th elements are swapped. As long as we're only swapping two elements there can only be two possible parent patterns for any given resultant pattern. Now if we swap more than 2 elements it gets big fast. I seem to be reading an implication that given a particular pattern, I, there is some rhyme or reason to the pattern of previous I's that got us here, there isn't. For any given pattern there is a infinite number of potential paths that would get to any particular. Let's say we have: [ 0 1 2 4 3 ] and we shuffle and get, [ 0 4 2 1 3 ] or, [ 0 1 2 4 3 ] Now if the question is how many possible ways could be have gotten to the original, [ 0 1 2 4 3 ], then there are two ways to calculate that, given no stipulation on reptitions we get: n^2 given a stipulation for no repetitions we get: (n)(n-1) We can generalize this somewhat if we let s represent our current sequence and our goal is to determine the number of possible previous states the sequence could have held. s-1 = n^2 or, s-1 = n(n-1) Now if we want to calculate the number of possible parent generations for s-1 *from the perspective of s0* we get: s-2 = (s-1)^2 = (n^2)^2 or, s-2 = (s-1)((s-1)-1) = (n^2)((n^2)-1) Thus, s-3 = (s-2)^2 = ((s-1)^2)^2 = ((n^2)^2)^2 or, s-3 = (s-2)((s-2)-1) = ( (n^2)((n^2)-1) )( ((n^2)((n^2)-1) )-1) = (n^4 - n^2)( (n^4 - n^2) - 1) for the second form only, s-4 = (s-3)((s-3)-1) = ((n^4-n^2)((n^4-n^2)-1))(((n^4-n^2)((n^4-n^2)-1))-1) = ((n^4-n^2)^2 - (n^4-n^2)) (n^4-n^2)^2-(n^4-n^2))-1) (I'm going to stop here trying to resolve this equation, I don't have the time. Note that the relation is i(i-1) for each generation so we only need to affix a relation to i and the generation number. It's worth noting this can be resolved recursively.) These can be generalized for the first form to: C(s-i) = n^(2^i), where i is the number of generations going back. The inverse makes a handy measure of entropy as well as telling you the odds of selecting any particular path from one pattern to another pattern given the number of elements swaps that are allowed. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

No Subject
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can someone do a fill in/summary/recapitulation? I'm not sure I understand all of this and the MIB stuff... -----Original Message----- From: Anonymous <nobody(a)replay.com> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 8:45 PM :[Two letters received by fax on 27 October 1998] : :---------- : :[Letter 1, cover and 16 pages] : :8 September 1998 : :Cover Sheet : :Declan : :The Good News is that I have a pen to write :with, due to the Free Enterprise System being :alive & well within the Prison System. : :The Bad News is that Micro$oft Pens (TM) :controls 95% of the market... : :I am hoping you can share as much of this :communique as possible with the CPUNX, :since my chain is constantly getting yanked :in different directions, making outside contact :sporatic & unreliable. : :Feel free to reserve for your own use any :of the enclosed information you need for your :own journalistic purposes. : :I will try to reach you by phone (automated :collect-call system requiring touch-tone on :your end). : :Thanks for the Mags, : : CJ Parker : :ps# My prison cell mirror now reads, :"Chocolate Skelter." (Brownie & Milk) : :------------------------------------------------ : :[FLORENCE NUTLY NEWS - "I'M HERE BECAUSE I :believe that the KONTROLLERS are taking :actions that create obstacles to the freedom :and openess of the Internet. ~Truth Glaser] : :Declan, : :Looks like you may be receiving the *only* copy :of the Florence Nutly News, since I have, up :until now, been writing on paper towels and :medicine cups, using combinations of blood, :sperm and chocolate (two of which are in short :supply) for ink, and I will soon be headed :to Nutly News Head (pardon the pun) Quarters :in Springfield, Missouri, for Rewiring of :my Brain Circuity.

1 0

No Subject
by informant＠earthlink.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

10/30/98 Y2K Solution! 8 Pine Circle Dr., Silicon Valley, Calif. OTC Company "TCFG" 21 st. Century Frontier Group has through several members of their administrative research department leaked vital information about their companies efforts. Everyone was tight lipped and interviews were refused, and through un-named sources we have learned that the technology and software solution are in the process of being patented! In over 1640 trials, using various data systems the use of the new technology and software solved the Y2K problem 100% of the time. This small publicly traded company "TCFG" which is just 3 years old is through various sources now negotiating with the "Big Boys"! "TCFG" the letters to look for.....

1 0

Re: Random array (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 20:04:57 -0800 > From: Jim Gillogly <jim(a)acm.org> > Subject: Re: Random array > One could modify Greg's suggestion slightly by attaching an auxiliary > array of 256 random numbers to each of the members of the original > array and then using the most efficient handy sort algorithm to sort > those random numbers, dragging along their associated original array > elements. This way it doesn't have a chance to interfere with the > operation of the sorting algorithm, at the cost of an extra array. So you've got a set of arrays that have 256 numbers in them, whether they are random or not is irrelevant since we're going to sort them and break their randomness. It is merely sufficient that they all be reasonably (what the hell ever that's going to mean) different, if they're all 6's for example it isn't going to be very interesting. If I understand the process. Each array would cycle through in parallel sorting 2 elements of each array. Once that was finished we'd then sort the arrays themselves according to some process. From your description it seems to imply that you're going to sort the 1st element descending at that point. This in effect mis-orders each array after every sort. This sort of system is an IFS and could lead to determinism (ie a cycle of sort patterns that repeat endlessly) or chaos (ie a pattern that doesn't repeat). It in and of itself doesn't guarantee any randomness merely a continously munged sort. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Jim Gilmore
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> from ppoole(a)fcref.org CfCL Weekly Update 10/30/98 ***** Companies Create New Crypto Back Door Hewlett-Packard and Wave Systems announced Tuesday that they have developed a new programmable chip that can be adjusted to match prevailing encryption policies. This system will only allow a computer to encrypt data to the maximum level that local regulations allow. The new program, called EMBASSY, must be registered with a "designated local authority", who will activate the cryptography application. The companies behind EMBASSY are hoping that the program will meet the new Department of Commerce encryption export standards, which currently place a 56-bit limit on exported software applications. While 90 percent of countries have no domestic-use policies, the program allows law enforcement agencies that mandate key recovery features, such as France, to be able to obtain access to a user's encrypted files under certain circumstances. Several countries, including the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Japan and Australia have already approved the technology. The US will not issue export license until they are certain that the recovery elements have been tested. Privacy advocates were critical of EMBASSY. Jim Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, expressed concern that the cooperation of Hewlett-Packard and Wave Systems with the government may lead to more surreptitious features being included into the program. "What other black boxes have they put in this chip? Keystroke monitoring? Recording traffic across the bus?" asked Gilmore. "If they're giving you a black box, who's to say what other capabilities are actually in that chip?" Read this related WIRED News article: http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/15848.html

1 0