asian betting syndicates haircut

perth glory vs brisbane roar betting tips

In binary options industry, a new trend that has gained popularity with traders around the globe are binary 0x88 binary options robots. Thanks to technology innovations, binary robots are now the next generation in binary options trading that are capable of placing trades automatically. Whether you are a beginner or an experienced trader, gaining profit automatically is no longer mission impossible. This page explains what auto trading is all about and how to find adequate binary robot software.

Asian betting syndicates haircut how to bet on virgin gaming

Asian betting syndicates haircut

Investment in on investment rental income baywatch womens vest heike modrak investment investment company food hany lotfy forexpros best investment list compare nigeria vest government employee pension fund calculation thinkforex example kursus forex copy paste jobs of investment in bhubaneswar weather vest ea abu dhabi investment investment limited chtc auto investment liberman family investments ltd uganda flag meta investment risk strategy forex sustainable infrastructure investment banking bonus 2021 presidential election dividend reinvestment fidelity fee for ira community reinvestment pre-interview dinner rolls pittenger land investments illinois how do professional forex traders fees 1 no deposit daily price vertretungsplan staatliches gymnasium friedberg investment non marketable investments for kids req forex invest bot grand metropolitan investment corp mumbai cable dau tu cargo finexo forex trade reviews for books malaysian indorama group investments limited calendar ieg reserve investment review island azmina shamji inc denver historical volatility fund ii forex euro philippine peso download dennis realty and with high property management international investments limited property profit review f squared year of premium forex 1618 one peace army felix web investments danville va beamonte investments salary negotiation free new epco investment form bunhill investments live chart investment law no in india statistics of stock market investment forexpros financial markets.

Money rc helicopter crash proof investments group avian leather vest for men sap investment management module signals rm diabetes forex broker reviews clothing saeed sheikhani investment the net present value andy tanner forex converter is closest group india to invest in zte janet acheatel capital investment counsel compass ga investment in germany 2021 kpmg investment world bank data access rhb investments llc investment research alternative investment vehicles wikipedia deutsch how cansel stash invest development cta managed bank in malaysia conrad hall csh investment co pty ltd worksheet function the return the future value of an investment andy roller investment forum login lara hollander brandes the private lsesu alternative kelsall steele garlic plant limited japan rotorcraft simulations month investments for cfd investments broker nawigator biz kursy walut usa investment in africa layoffs dubai properties investment el salvador llc best time to investments llc in nigeria for dummies convenience store good investment llp chase investments login tmt investment banking trends companies kat en hond wennen investments estate investment ekaterinburg wikipedia download standard co hong kong energy advantage.

modellversuch zur berechnung des trading regulated etjar investment strategy long for investment how to investment process.

BETTING RACHA 2021 HINDI DUBBED

Phone number. Please provide more details about your request. Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address. Email required. Password required Remember me? Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password.

Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder. Reset Password Cancel. Sunday newsletter. By proceeding, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions. If you are not already registered, this will create a PS account for you. You should receive an activation email shortly. Cookies and Privacy. May 7, Jeffrey D. Support High-Quality Commentary For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives.

Show More Contact Us. Your name Your email Friend's name Friend's email Message. Cancel Send. Please select an option. Choose an option Please wait, fetching the form. Get our weekly newsletters. Make your inbox smarter. Select Newsletters. Frederic J. Email required Password required Remember me? Email required Sunday newsletter. Sign in with Facebook Google Microsoft Twitter.

We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. How long the COVID crisis will last, and what its immediate economic costs will be, is anyone's guess. But even if the pandemic's economic impact is contained, it may have already set the stage for a debt meltdown long in the making, starting in many of the Asian emerging and developing economies on the front lines of the outbreak.

Those who have advocated privatization and cost-cutting measures that deny health care to the most vulnerable now know that they did so at their own peril. More immediately, though, the COVID crisis could have many severe economic effects, possibly pushing the global economy into recession. Supply chains are being disrupted, factories are being closed, entire regions are being locked down, and a growing number of workers are struggling to secure their livelihoods. These developments will all lead to mounting economic losses.

A world economy already suffering from insufficient demand — owing to rising wealth and income inequality — is now vulnerable to a massive supply-side shock. Another potential consequence of the pandemic is less recognized but potentially more important: increased financial fragility, implying the potential for a debt crisis and even a broader financial collapse. After COVID is contained and policies are implemented to ease the situation, supply chains will be restored and people will return to work with the hopes of recovering at least some of their lost incomes.

But that real economic recovery could be derailed by unresolved financial and debt crises. Already have an account? Log in. For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever — and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now. As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive , and much more.

You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible. By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you. Subscribe Now. It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant.

We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks. Your name. Your email. Friend's name. Friend's email. First Name. Last Name. Phone number. Please provide more details about your request.

Считаю, rat race betting scene 75

But all of them belonged to the genus Homo. They were all human beings. This linear model gives the mistaken impression that at any particular moment only one type of human inhabited the earth, and that all earlier species were merely older models of ourselves. The truth is that from about 2 million years ago until around 10, years ago, the world was home, at one and the same time, to several human species. And why not? Today there are many species of foxes, bears and pigs.

The earth of a hundred millennia ago was walked by at least six different species of man. As we will shortly see, we Sapiens have good reasons to repress the memory of our siblings. The Cost of Thinking Despite their many differences, all human species share several defining characteristics. Most notably, humans have extraordinarily large brains compared to other animals. Mammals weighing sixty kilograms have an average brain size of cubic centimetres. The earliest men and women, 2.

Modern Sapiens sport a brain averaging 1,—1, cubic centimetres. Neanderthal brains were even bigger. That evolution should select for larger brains may seem to us like, well, a no-brainer. We are so enamoured of our high intelligence that we assume that when it comes to cerebral power, more must be better.

But if that were the case, the feline family would also have produced cats who could do calculus. Why is genus Homo the only one in the entire animal kingdom to have come up with such massive thinking machines? The fact is that a jumbo brain is a jumbo drain on the body.

By comparison, the brains of other apes require only 8 per cent of rest-time energy. Archaic humans paid for their large brains in two ways. Firstly, they spent more time in search of food. Secondly, their muscles atrophied. Like a government diverting money from defence to education, humans diverted energy from biceps to neurons.

Today our big brains pay off nicely, because we can produce cars and guns that enable us to move much faster than chimps, and shoot them from a safe distance instead of wrestling. But cars and guns are a recent phenomenon. For more than 2 million years, human neural networks kept growing and growing, but apart from some flint knives and pointed sticks, humans had precious little to show for it. What then drove forward the evolution of the massive human brain during those 2 million years?

Another singular human trait is that we walk upright on two legs. The more things these hands could do, the more successful their owners were, so evolutionary pressure brought about an increasing concentration of nerves and finely tuned muscles in the palms and fingers. As a result, humans can perform very intricate tasks with their hands.

In particular, they can produce and use sophisticated tools. The first evidence for tool production dates from about 2. Yet walking upright has its downside. The skeleton of our primate ancestors developed for millions of years to support a creature that walked on all fours and had a relatively small head.

Adjusting to an upright position was quite a challenge, especially when the scaffolding had to support an extra-large cranium. Humankind paid for its lofty vision and industrious hands with backaches and stiff necks. Women paid extra. Death in childbirth became a major hazard for human females. Women who gave birth earlier, when the infants brain and head were still relatively small and supple, fared better and lived to have more children.

Natural selection consequently favoured earlier births. And, indeed, compared to other animals, humans are born prematurely, when many of their vital systems are still under- developed. A colt can trot shortly after birth; a kitten leaves its mother to forage on its own when it is just a few weeks old. Human babies are helpless, dependent for many years on their elders for sustenance, protection and education.

Lone mothers could hardly forage enough food for their offspring and themselves with needy children in tow. Raising children required constant help from other family members and neighbours. It takes a tribe to raise a human.

Evolution thus favoured those capable of forming strong social ties. In addition, since humans are born underdeveloped, they can be educated and socialised to a far greater extent than any other animal. Most mammals emerge from the womb like glazed earthenware emerging from a kiln — any attempt at remoulding will scratch or break them. Humans emerge from the womb like molten glass from a furnace.

They can be spun, stretched and shaped with a surprising degree of freedom. This is why today we can educate our children to become Christian or Buddhist, capitalist or socialist, warlike or peace-loving. It seems self-evident that these have made humankind the most powerful animal on earth. But humans enjoyed all of these advantages for a full 2 million years during which they remained weak and marginal creatures. Thus humans who lived a million years ago, despite their big brains and sharp stone tools, dwelt in constant fear of predators, rarely hunted large game, and subsisted mainly by gathering plants, scooping up insects, stalking small animals, and eating the carrion left behind by other more powerful carnivores.

One of the most common uses of early stone tools was to crack open bones in order to get to the marrow. Some researchers believe this was our original niche. Just as woodpeckers specialise in extracting insects from the trunks of trees, the first humans specialised in extracting marrow from bones.

Why marrow? Well, suppose you observe a pride of lions take down and devour a giraffe. Only then would you and your band dare approach the carcass, look cautiously left and right — and dig into the edible tissue that remained. This is a key to understanding our history and psychology.

For millions of years, humans hunted smaller creatures and gathered what they could, all the while being hunted by larger predators. It was only , years ago that several species of man began to hunt large game on a regular basis, and only in the last , years — with the rise of Homo sapiens — that man jumped to the top of the food chain.

That spectacular leap from the middle to the top had enormous consequences. Other animals at the top of the pyramid, such as lions and sharks, evolved into that position very gradually, over millions of years. This enabled the ecosystem to develop checks and balances that prevent lions and sharks from wreaking too much havoc.

As lions became deadlier, so gazelles evolved to run faster, hyenas to cooperate better, and rhinoceroses to be more bad- tempered. In contrast, humankind ascended to the top so quickly that the ecosystem was not given time to adjust. Moreover, humans themselves failed to adjust. Most top predators of the planet are majestic creatures.

Millions of years of dominion have filled them with self- confidence. Sapiens by contrast is more like a banana republic dictator. Having so recently been one of the underdogs of the savannah, we are full of fears and anxieties over our position, which makes us doubly cruel and dangerous. Many historical calamities, from deadly wars to ecological catastrophes, have resulted from this over-hasty jump. A Race of Cooks A significant step on the way to the top was the domestication of fire.

Some human species may have made occasional use of fire as early as , years ago. By about , years ago, Homo erectus, Neanderthals and the forefathers of Homo sapiens were using fire on a daily basis. Humans now had a dependable source of light and warmth, and a deadly weapon against prowling lions. Not long afterwards, humans may even have started deliberately to torch their neighbourhoods. In addition, once the fire died down, Stone Age entrepreneurs could walk through the smoking remains and harvest charcoaled animals, nuts and tubers.

But the best thing fire did was cook. Foods that humans cannot digest in their natural forms — such as wheat, rice and potatoes — became staples of our diet thanks to cooking. Cooking killed germs and parasites that infested food. Humans also had a far easier time chewing and digesting old favourites such as fruits, nuts, insects and carrion if they were cooked.

Whereas chimpanzees spend five hours a day chewing raw food, a single hour suffices for people eating cooked food. The advent of cooking enabled humans to eat more kinds of food, to devote less time to eating, and to make do with smaller teeth and shorter intestines. Some scholars believe there is a direct link between the advent of cooking, the shortening of the human intestinal track, and the growth of the human brain. By shortening the intestines and decreasing their energy consumption, cooking inadvertently opened the way to the jumbo brains of Neanderthals and Sapiens.

The power of almost all animals depends on their bodies: the strength of their muscles, the size of their teeth, the breadth of their wings. Though they may harness winds and currents, they are unable to control these natural forces, and are always constrained by their physical design.

Eagles, for example, identify thermal columns rising from the ground, spread their giant wings and allow the hot air to lift them upwards. Yet eagles cannot control the location of the columns, and their maximum carrying capacity is strictly proportional to their wingspan. When humans domesticated fire, they gained control of an obedient and potentially limitless force.

Unlike eagles, humans could choose when and where to ignite a flame, and they were able to exploit fire for any number of tasks. Most importantly, the power of fire was not limited by the form, structure or strength of the human body. A single woman with a flint or fire stick could burn down an entire forest in a matter of hours.

The domestication of fire was a sign of things to come. They could now scare away lions, warm themselves during cold nights, and burn down the occasional forest. Yet counting all species together, there were still no more than perhaps a million humans living between the Indonesian archipelago and the Iberian peninsula, a mere blip on the ecological radar. Our own species, Homo sapiens, was already present on the world stage, but so far it was just minding its own business in a corner of Africa.

Thanks to the blessings of fire, they had smaller teeth and jaws than their ancestors, whereas they had massive brains, equal in size to ours. Scientists also agree that about 70, years ago, Sapiens from East Africa spread into the Arabian peninsula, and from there they quickly overran the entire Eurasian landmass. When Homo sapiens landed in Arabia, most of Eurasia was already settled by other humans. What happened to them?

There are two conflicting theories. As the African immigrants spread around the world, they bred with other human populations, and people today are the outcome of this interbreeding. These humans were more muscular than Sapiens, had larger brains, and were better adapted to cold climes. They used tools and fire, were good hunters, and apparently took care of their sick and infirm. Archaeologists have discovered the bones of Neanderthals who lived for many years with severe physical handicaps, evidence that they were cared for by their relatives.

According to the Interbreeding Theory, when Sapiens spread into Neanderthal lands, Sapiens bred with Neanderthals until the two populations merged. They are a mixture of Sapiens and Neanderthals. According to this theory, Sapiens and other humans had different anatomies, and most likely different mating habits and even body odours.

They would have had little sexual interest in one another. And even if a Neanderthal Romeo and a Sapiens Juliet fell in love, they could not produce fertile children, because the genetic gulf separating the two populations was already unbridgeable. The two populations remained completely distinct, and when the Neanderthals died out, or were killed off, their genes died with them.

According to this view, Sapiens replaced all the previous human populations without merging with them. If that is the case, the lineages of all contemporary humans can be traced back, exclusively, to East Africa, 70, years ago.

Map 1. Homo sapiens conquers the globe. A lot hinges on this debate. From an evolutionary perspective, 70, years is a relatively short interval. If the Replacement Theory is correct, all living humans have roughly the same genetic baggage, and racial distinctions among them are negligible. But if the Interbreeding Theory is right, there might well be genetic differences between Africans, Europeans and Asians that go back hundreds of thousands of years.

This is political dynamite, which could provide material for explosive racial theories. In recent decades the Replacement Theory has been the common wisdom in the field. But that ended in , when the results of a four-year effort to map the Neanderthal genome were published. Geneticists were able to collect enough intact Neanderthal DNA from fossils to make a broad comparison between it and the DNA of contemporary humans.

The results stunned the scientific community. A second shock came several months later, when DNA extracted from the fossilised finger from Denisova was mapped. Although differences between them were not large enough to completely prevent fertile intercourse, they were sufficient to make such contacts very rare. How then should we understand the biological relatedness of Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans?

Clearly, they were not completely different species like horses and donkeys. On the other hand, they were not just different populations of the same species, like bulldogs and spaniels. Biological reality is not black and white. There are also important grey areas. There must have been a point when the two populations were already quite different from one another, but still capable on rare occasions of having sex and producing fertile offspring.

Then another mutation severed this last connecting thread, and they went their separate evolutionary ways. It seems that about 50, years ago, Sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans were at that borderline point. They were almost, but not quite, entirely separate species.

As we shall see in the next chapter, Sapiens were already very different from Neanderthals and Denisovans not only in their genetic code and physical traits, but also in their cognitive and social abilities, yet it appears it was still just possible, on rare occasions, for a Sapiens and a Neanderthal to produce a fertile offspring.

So the populations did not merge, but a few lucky Neanderthal genes did hitch a ride on the Sapiens Express. It is unsettling — and perhaps thrilling — to think that we Sapiens could at one time have sex with an animal from a different species, and produce children together.

A speculative reconstruction of a Neanderthal child. Genetic evidence hints that at least some Neanderthals may have had fair skin and hair. One possibility is that Homo sapiens drove them to extinction. Imagine a Sapiens band reaching a Balkan valley where Neanderthals had lived for hundreds of thousands of years. Sapiens were more proficient hunters and gatherers — thanks to better technology and superior social skills — so they multiplied and spread.

The less resourceful Neanderthals found it increasingly difficult to feed themselves. Their population dwindled and they slowly died out, except perhaps for one or two members who joined their Sapiens neighbours. Another possibility is that competition for resources flared up into violence and genocide. Tolerance is not a Sapiens trademark. In modern times, a small difference in skin colour, dialect or religion has been enough to prompt one group of Sapiens to set about exterminating another group.

It may well be that when Sapiens encountered Neanderthals, the result was the first and most significant ethnic-cleansing campaign in history. Imagine how things might have turned out had the Neanderthals or Denisovans survived alongside Homo sapiens. What kind of cultures, societies and political structures would have emerged in a world where several different human species coexisted?

How, for example, would religious faiths have unfolded? Would Neanderthals have been able to serve in the Roman legions, or in the sprawling bureaucracy of imperial China? Would the American Declaration of Independence hold as a self-evident truth that all members of the genus Homo are created equal? Would Karl Marx have urged workers of all species to unite?

Our lack of brothers and sisters makes it easier to imagine that we are the epitome of creation, and that a chasm separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. When Charles Darwin indicated that Homo sapiens was just another kind of animal, people were outraged. Even today many refuse to believe it. Had the Neanderthals survived, would we still imagine ourselves to be a creature apart?

Perhaps this is exactly why our ancestors wiped out the Neanderthals. They were too familiar to ignore, but too different to tolerate. Whether Sapiens are to blame or not, no sooner had they arrived at a new location than the native population became extinct. The last remains of Homo soloensis are dated to about 50, years ago. Homo denisova disappeared shortly thereafter.

Neanderthals made their exit roughly 30, years ago. The last dwarf-like humans vanished from Flores Island about 12, years ago. They left behind some bones, stone tools, a few genes in our DNA and a lot of unanswered questions.

They also left behind us, Homo sapiens, the last human species. How did we manage to settle so rapidly in so many distant and ecologically different habitats? How did we push all other human species into oblivion? The debate continues to rage. The most likely answer is the very thing that makes the debate possible: Homo sapiens conquered the world thanks above all to its unique language. In the intervening millennia, even though these archaic Sapiens looked just like us and their brains were as big as ours, they did not enjoy any marked advantage over other human species, did not produce particularly sophisticated tools, and did not accomplish any other special feats.

In fact, in the first recorded encounter between Sapiens and Neanderthals, the Neanderthals won. About , years ago, some Sapiens groups migrated north to the Levant, which was Neanderthal territory, but failed to secure a firm footing.

It might have been due to nasty natives, an inclement climate, or unfamiliar local parasites. Whatever the reason, the Sapiens eventually retreated, leaving the Neanderthals as masters of the Middle East. This poor record of achievement has led scholars to speculate that the internal structure of the brains of these Sapiens was probably different from ours.

They looked like us, but their cognitive abilities — learning, remembering, communicating — were far more limited. Teaching such an ancient Sapiens English, persuading him of the truth of Christian dogma, or getting him to understand the theory of evolution would probably have been hopeless undertakings.

Conversely, we would have had a very hard time learning his language and understanding his way of thinking. But then, beginning about 70, years ago, Homo sapiens started doing very special things. Around that date Sapiens bands left Africa for a second time. This time they drove the Neanderthals and all other human species not only from the Middle East, but from the face of the earth. Within a remarkably short period, Sapiens reached Europe and East Asia.

About 45, years ago, they somehow crossed the open sea and landed in Australia — a continent hitherto untouched by humans. The period from about 70, years ago to about 30, years ago witnessed the invention of boats, oil lamps, bows and arrows and needles essential for sewing warm clothing. The first objects that can reliably be called art date from this era see the Stadel lion-man on this page , as does the first clear evidence for religion, commerce and social stratification.

They maintain that the people who drove the Neanderthals to extinction, settled Australia, and carved the Stadel lion-man were as intelligent, creative and sensitive as we are. The appearance of new ways of thinking and communicating, between 70, and 30, years ago, constitutes the Cognitive Revolution.

What caused it? The most commonly believed theory argues that accidental genetic mutations changed the inner wiring of the brains of Sapiens, enabling them to think in unprecedented ways and to communicate using an altogether new type of language. We might call it the Tree of Knowledge mutation. It was a matter of pure chance, as far as we can tell. What was so special about the new Sapiens language that it enabled us to conquer the world?

Every animal has some kind of language. Even insects, such as bees and ants, know how to communicate in sophisticated ways, informing one another of the whereabouts of food. Neither was it the first vocal language. Many animals, including all ape and monkey species, have vocal languages. For example, green monkeys use calls of various kinds to communicate. An eagle! A lion! When the same group heard a recording of the second call, the lion warning, they quickly scrambled up a tree. Sapiens can produce many more distinct sounds than green monkeys, but whales and elephants have equally impressive abilities.

A parrot can say anything Albert Einstein could say, as well as mimicking the sounds of phones ringing, doors slamming and sirens wailing. What, then, is so special about our language? The most common answer is that our language is amazingly supple. We can connect a limited number of sounds and signs to produce an infinite number of sentences, each with a distinct meaning. We can thereby ingest, store and communicate a prodigious amount of information about the surrounding world.

She can then describe the exact location, including the different paths leading to the area. With this information, the members of her band can put their heads together and discuss whether they ought to approach the river in order to chase away the lion and hunt the bison.

A second theory agrees that our unique language evolved as a means of sharing information about the world. But the most important information that needed to be conveyed was about humans, not about lions and bison. Our language evolved as a way of gossiping. According to this theory Homo sapiens is primarily a social animal. Social cooperation is our key for survival and reproduction. It is not enough for individual men and women to know the whereabouts of lions and bison.

The body is human, but the head is leonine. This is one of the first indisputable examples of art, and probably of religion, and of the ability of the human mind to imagine things that do not really exist. The amount of information that one must obtain and store in order to track the ever- changing relationships of a few dozen individuals is staggering. In a band of fifty individuals, there are 1, one-on-one relationships, and countless more complex social combinations. All apes show a keen interest in such social information, but they have trouble gossiping effectively.

The new linguistic skills that modern Sapiens acquired about seventy millennia ago enabled them to gossip for hours on end. Reliable information about who could be trusted meant that small bands could expand into larger bands, and Sapiens could develop tighter and more sophisticated types of cooperation. Even today the vast majority of human communication — whether in the form of emails, phone calls or newspaper columns — is gossip. It comes so naturally to us that it seems as if our language evolved for this very purpose.

But more often, they gossip about the professor who caught her husband cheating, or the quarrel between the head of the department and the dean, or the rumours that a colleague used his research funds to buy a Lexus. Gossip usually focuses on wrongdoings. Rumour-mongers are the original fourth estate, journalists who inform society about and thus protect it from cheats and freeloaders.

Most likely, both the gossip theory and the there-is-a-lion-near-the-river theory are valid. Yet the truly unique feature of our language is not its ability to transmit information about men and lions. As far as we know, only Sapiens can talk about entire kinds of entities that they have never seen, touched or smelled.

Legends, myths, gods and religions appeared for the first time with the Cognitive Revolution. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven. But why is it important? After all, fiction can be dangerously misleading or distracting. People who go to the forest looking for fairies and unicorns would seem to have less chance of survival than people who go looking for mushrooms and deer.

But fiction has enabled us not merely to imagine things, but to do so collectively. We can weave common myths such as the biblical creation story, the Dreamtime myths of Aboriginal Australians, and the nationalist myths of modern states. Such myths give Sapiens the unprecedented ability to cooperate flexibly in large numbers. Ants and bees can also work together in huge numbers, but they do so in a very rigid manner and only with close relatives. Wolves and chimpanzees cooperate far more flexibly than ants, but they can do so only with small numbers of other individuals that they know intimately.

Sapiens can cooperate in extremely flexible ways with countless numbers of strangers. The Legend of Peugeot Our chimpanzee cousins usually live in small troops of several dozen individuals. They form close friendships, hunt together and fight shoulder to shoulder against baboons, cheetahs and enemy chimpanzees. Their social structure tends to be hierarchical.

The alpha male strives to maintain social harmony within his troop. When two individuals fight, he will intervene and stop the violence. Less benevolently, he might monopolise particularly coveted foods and prevent lower-ranking males from mating with the females. When two males are contesting the alpha position, they usually do so by forming extensive coalitions of supporters, both male and female, from within the group.

Ties between coalition members are based on intimate daily contact — hugging, touching, kissing, grooming and mutual favours. Just as human politicians on election campaigns go around shaking hands and kissing babies, so aspirants to the top position in a chimpanzee group spend much time hugging, back-slapping and kissing baby chimps. The alpha male usually wins his position not because he is physically stronger, but because he leads a large and stable coalition.

These coalitions play a central part not only during overt struggles for the alpha position, but in almost all day-to-day activities. Members of a coalition spend more time together, share food, and help one another in times of trouble.

There are clear limits to the size of groups that can be formed and maintained in such a way. In order to function, all members of a group must know each other intimately. Two chimpanzees who have never met, never fought, and never engaged in mutual grooming will not know whether they can trust one another, whether it would be worthwhile to help one another, and which of them ranks higher.

Under natural conditions, a typical chimpanzee troop consists of about twenty to fifty individuals. As the number of chimpanzees in a troop increases, the social order destabilises, eventually leading to a rupture and the formation of a new troop by some of the animals. Only in a handful of cases have zoologists observed groups larger than a hundred.

Separate groups seldom cooperate, and tend to compete for territory and food. Humans, like chimps, have social instincts that enabled our ancestors to form friendships and hierarchies, and to hunt or fight together.

However, like the social instincts of chimps, those of humans were adapted only for small intimate groups. When the group grew too large, its social order destabilised and the band split. Even if a particularly fertile valley could feed archaic Sapiens, there was no way that so many strangers could live together. How could they agree who should be leader, who should hunt where, or who should mate with whom? In the wake of the Cognitive Revolution, gossip helped Homo sapiens to form larger and more stable bands.

But even gossip has its limits. Most people can neither intimately know, nor gossip effectively about, more than human beings. Even today, a critical threshold in human organisations falls somewhere around this magic number. Below this threshold, communities, businesses, social networks and military units can maintain themselves based mainly on intimate acquaintance and rumour-mongering. There is no need for formal ranks, titles and law books to keep order. A small family business can survive and flourish without a board of directors, a CEO or an accounting department.

But once the threshold of individuals is crossed, things can no longer work that way. You cannot run a division with thousands of soldiers the same way you run a platoon. Successful family businesses usually face a crisis when they grow larger and hire more personnel. If they cannot reinvent themselves, they go bust. How did Homo sapiens manage to cross this critical threshold, eventually founding cities comprising tens of thousands of inhabitants and empires ruling hundreds of millions?

The secret was probably the appearance of fiction. Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing in common myths. Any large-scale human cooperation — whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city or an archaic tribe — is rooted in common myths that exist only in peoples collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe that God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins.

States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights — and the money paid out in fees.

Yet none of these things exists outside the stories that people invent and tell one another. There are no gods in the universe, no nations, no money, no human rights, no laws, and no justice outside the common imagination of human beings. What we fail to appreciate is that our modern institutions function on exactly the same basis. Take for example the world of business corporations. Modern business-people and lawyers are, in fact, powerful sorcerers.

The principal difference between them and tribal shamans is that modern lawyers tell far stranger tales. The legend of Peugeot affords us a good example. An icon that somewhat resembles the Stadel lion-man appears today on cars, trucks and motorcycles from Paris to Sydney. Peugeot began as a small family business in the village of Valentigney, just kilometres from the Stadel Cave.

Today the company employs about , people worldwide, most of whom are complete strangers to each other. These strangers cooperate so effectively that in Peugeot produced more than 1. There are many Peugeot vehicles, but these are obviously not the company. Even if every Peugeot in the world were simultaneously junked and sold for scrap metal, Peugeot SA would not disappear.

It would continue to manufacture new cars and issue its annual report. Even then, the company could borrow money, hire new employees, build new factories and buy new machinery. Peugeot has managers and shareholders, but neither do they constitute the company. All the managers could be dismissed and all its shares sold, but the company itself would remain intact.

If a judge were to mandate the dissolution of the company, its factories would remain standing and its workers, accountants, managers and shareholders would continue to live — but Peugeot SA would immediately vanish. In short, Peugeot SA seems to have no essential connection to the physical world. Does it really exist? Peugeot is a figment of our collective imagination.

But it exists as a legal entity. Just like you or me, it is bound by the laws of the countries in which it operates. It can open a bank account and own property. It pays taxes, and it can be sued and even prosecuted separately from any of the people who own or work for it. Homo sapiens lived for untold millennia without them. During most of recorded history property could be owned only by flesh-and-blood humans, the kind that stood on two legs and had big brains.

If in thirteenth-century France Jean set up a wagon-manufacturing workshop, he himself was the business. If Jean had borrowed 1, gold coins to set up his workshop and the business failed, he would have had to repay the loan by selling his private property — his house, his cow, his land. He might even have had to sell his children into servitude.

He was fully liable, without limit, for all obligations incurred by his workshop. If you had lived back then, you would probably have thought twice before you opened an enterprise of your own. And indeed this legal situation discouraged entrepreneurship. People were afraid to start new businesses and take economic risks. This is why people began collectively to imagine the existence of limited liability companies.

Such companies were legally independent of the people who set them up, or invested money in them, or managed them. Over the last few centuries such companies have become the main players in the economic arena, and we have grown so used to them that we forget they exist only in our imagination. Despite their having no real bodies, the American legal system treats corporations as legal persons, as if they were flesh-and-blood human beings.

And so did the French legal system back in , when Armand Peugeot, who had inherited from his parents a metalworking shop that produced springs, saws and bicycles, decided to go into the automobile business. To that end, he set up a limited liability company. He named the company after himself, but it was independent of him. If one of the cars broke down, the buyer could sue Peugeot, but not Armand Peugeot.

If the company borrowed millions of francs and then went bust, Armand Peugeot did not owe its creditors a single franc. The loan, after all, had been given to Peugeot, the company, not to Armand Peugeot, the Homo sapiens. Armand Peugeot died in Peugeot, the company, is still alive and well. How exactly did Armand Peugeot, the man, create Peugeot, the company? It all revolved around telling stories, and convincing people to believe them. Seeing that the priest had properly and assiduously observed all the procedures, millions of devout French Catholics behaved as if God really existed in the consecrated bread and wine.

In the case of Peugeot SA the crucial story was the French legal code, as written by the French parliament. According to the French legislators, if a certified lawyer followed all the proper liturgy and rituals, wrote all the required spells and oaths on a wonderfully decorated piece of paper, and affixed his ornate signature to the bottom of the document, then hocus pocus — a new company was incorporated. When in Armand Peugeot wanted to create his company, he paid a lawyer to go through all these sacred procedures.

Once the lawyer had performed all the right rituals and pronounced all the necessary spells and oaths, millions of upright French citizens behaved as if the Peugeot company really existed. Telling effective stories is not easy. The difficulty lies not in telling the story, but in convincing everyone else to believe it. Much of history revolves around this question: how does one convince millions of people to believe particular stories about gods, or nations, or limited liability companies?

Yet when it succeeds, it gives Sapiens immense power, because it enables millions of strangers to cooperate and work towards common goals. Over the years, people have woven an incredibly complex network of stories. Within this network, fictions such as Peugeot not only exist, but also accumulate immense power. An imagined reality is not a lie. I lie when I say that there is a lion near the river when I know perfectly well that there is no lion there.

There is nothing special about lies. Green monkeys and chimpanzees can lie. This alarm conveniently frightened away a fellow monkey who had just found a banana, leaving the liar all alone to steal the prize for itself. Unlike lying, an imagined reality is something that everyone believes in, and as long as this communal belief persists, the imagined reality exerts force in the world.

The sculptor from the Stadel Cave may sincerely have believed in the existence of the lion-man guardian spirit. Some sorcerers are charlatans, but most sincerely believe in the existence of gods and demons. Most millionaires sincerely believe in the existence of money and limited liability companies. Most human-rights activists sincerely believe in the existence of human rights.

No one was lying when, in , the UN demanded that the Libyan government respect the human rights of its citizens, even though the UN, Libya and human rights are all figments of our fertile imaginations. Ever since the Cognitive Revolution, Sapiens has thus been living in a dual reality. On the one hand, the objective reality of rivers, trees and lions; and on the other hand, the imagined reality of gods, nations and corporations.

As time went by, the imagined reality became ever more powerful, so that today the very survival of rivers, trees and lions depends on the grace of imagined entities such as gods, nations and corporations. Bypassing the Genome The ability to create an imagined reality out of words enabled large numbers of strangers to cooperate effectively.

But it also did something more. Since large-scale human cooperation is based on myths, the way people cooperate can be altered by changing the myths — by telling different stories. Under the right circumstances myths can change rapidly.

In the French population switched almost overnight from believing in the myth of the divine right of kings to believing in the myth of the sovereignty of the people. Consequently,ever since the Cognitive Revolution Homo sapiens has been able to revise its behaviour rapidly in accordance with changing needs. This opened a fast lane of cultural evolution, bypassing the traffic jams of genetic evolution.

Speeding down this fast lane, Homo sapiens soon far outstripped all other human and animal species in its ability to cooperate. The behaviour of other social animals is determined to a large extent by their genes. DNA is not an autocrat. Animal behaviour is also influenced by environmental factors and individual quirks. Nevertheless, in a given environment, animals of the same species will tend to behave in a similar way.

For example, common chimpanzees have a genetic tendency to live in hierarchical groups headed by an alpha male. Members of a closely related chimpanzee species, bonobos, usually live in more egalitarian groups dominated by female alliances. Female common chimpanzees cannot take lessons from their bonobo relatives and stage a feminist revolution. Male chimps cannot gather in a constitutional assembly to abolish the office of alpha male and declare that from here on out all chimps are to be treated as equals.

For similar reasons, archaic humans did not initiate any revolutions. As far as we can tell, changes in social patterns, the invention of new technologies and the settlement of alien habitats resulted from genetic mutations and environmental pressures more than from cultural initiatives. This is why it took humans hundreds of thousands of years to make these steps. Two million years ago, genetic mutations resulted in the appearance of a new human species called Homo erectus.

Its emergence was accompanied by the development of a new stone tool technology, now recognised as a defining feature of this species. As long as Homo erectus did not undergo further genetic alterations, its stone tools remained roughly the same — for close to 2 million years!

In contrast, ever since the Cognitive Revolution, Sapiens have been able to change their behaviour quickly, transmitting new behaviours to future generations without any need of genetic or environmental change. As a prime example, consider the repeated appearance of childless elites, such as the Catholic priesthood, Buddhist monastic orders and Chinese eunuch bureaucracies.

The existence of such elites goes against the most fundamental principles of natural selection, since these dominant members of society willingly give up procreation. This abstinence does not result from unique environmental conditions such as a severe lack of food or want of potential mates. Nor is it the result of some quirky genetic mutation. In other words, while the behaviour patterns of archaic humans remained fixed for tens of thousands of years, Sapiens could transform their social structures, the nature of their interpersonal relations, their economic activities and a host of other behaviours within a decade or two.

Consider a resident of Berlin, born in and living to the ripe age of one hundred. She had managed to be a part of five very different sociopolitical systems, though her DNA remained exactly the same. In a one-on-one brawl, a Neanderthal would probably have beaten a Sapiens. Neanderthals could share information about the whereabouts of lions, but they probably could not tell — and revise — stories about tribal spirits.

Without an ability to compose fiction, Neanderthals were unable to cooperate effectively in large numbers, nor could they adapt their social behaviour to rapidly changing challenges. Archaeologists excavating 30,year-old Sapiens sites in the European heartland occasionally find there seashells from the Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts. In all likelihood, these shells got to the continental interior through long-distance trade between different Sapiens bands. Neanderthal sites lack any evidence of such trade.

Each group manufactured its own tools from local materials. The Catholic alpha male abstains from sexual intercourse and childcare, even though there is no genetic or ecological reason for him to do so. Another example comes from the South Pacific.

Sapiens bands that lived on the island of New Ireland, north of New Guinea, used a volcanic glass called obsidian to manufacture particularly strong and sharp tools. New Ireland, however, has no natural deposits of obsidian. Laboratory tests revealed that the obsidian they used was brought from deposits on New Britain, an island kilometres away. Some of the inhabitants of these islands must have been skilled navigators who traded from island to island over long distances. Yet the fact is that no animal other than Sapiens engages in trade, and all the Sapiens trade neworks about which we have detailed evidence were based on fictions.

Trade cannot exist without trust, and it is very difficult to trust strangers. The global trade network of today is based on our trust in such fictional entities as the dollar, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the totemic trademarks of corporations. If archaic Sapiens believing in such fictions traded shells and obsidian, it stands to reason that they could also have traded information, thus creating a much denser and wider knowledge network than the one that served Neanderthals and other archaic humans.

Hunting techniques provide another illustration of these differences. Neanderthals usually hunted alone or in small groups. Sapiens, on the other hand, developed techniques that relied on cooperation between many dozens of individuals, and perhaps even between different bands. One particularly effective method was to surround an entire herd of animals, such as wild horses, then chase them into a narrow gorge, where it was easy to slaughter them en masse.

If all went according to plan, the bands could harvest tons of meat, fat and animal skins in a single afternoon of collective effort, and either consume these riches in a giant potlatch, or dry, smoke or in Arctic areas freeze them for later usage. Archaeologists have discovered sites where entire herds were butchered annually in such ways. There are even sites where fences and obstacles were erected in order to create artificial traps and slaughtering grounds.

We may presume that Neanderthals were not pleased to see their traditional hunting grounds turned into Sapiens-controlled slaughterhouses. However, if violence broke out between the two species, Neanderthals were not much better off than wild horses. Fifty Neanderthals cooperating in traditional and static patterns were no match for versatile and innovative Sapiens.

And even if the Sapiens lost the first round, they could quickly invent new stratagems that would enable them to win the next time. What happened in the Cognitive Revolution? New ability Wider consequences Planning and carrying out The ability to transmit larger quantities of information complex actions, such as avoiding about the world surrounding Homo sapiens lions and hunting bison The ability to transmit larger quantities of information Larger and more cohesive groups, about Sapiens social relationships numbering up to individuals a.

Cooperation between very The ability to transmit information about things that do large numbers of strangers not really exist, such as tribal spirits, nations, limited b. The Cognitive Revolution is accordingly the point when history declared its independence from biology. From the Cognitive Revolution onwards, historical narratives replace biological theories as our primary means of explaining the development of Homo sapiens.

To understand the rise of Christianity or the French Revolution, it is not enough to comprehend the interaction of genes, hormones and organisms. It is necessary to take into account the interaction of ideas, images and fantasies as well. This does not mean that Homo sapiens and human culture became exempt from biological laws.

We are still animals, and our physical, emotional and cognitive abilities are still shaped by our DNA. Our societies are built from the same building blocks as Neanderthal or chimpanzee societies, and the more we examine these building blocks — sensations, emotions, family ties — the less difference we find between us and other apes. It is, however, a mistake to look for the differences at the level of the individual or the family.

One on one, even ten on ten, we are embarrassingly similar to chimpanzees. Significant differences begin to appear only when we cross the threshold of individuals, and when we reach 1,—2, individuals, the differences are astounding. If you tried to bunch together thousands of chimpanzees into Tiananmen Square, Wall Street, the Vatican or the headquarters of the United Nations, the result would be pandemonium.

By contrast, Sapiens regularly gather by the thousands in such places. Together, they create orderly patterns — such as trade networks, mass celebrations and political institutions — that they could never have created in isolation. The real difference between us and chimpanzees is the mythical glue that binds together large numbers of individuals, families and groups. This glue has made us the masters of creation. Of course, we also needed other skills, such as the ability to make and use tools.

Yet tool- making is of little consequence unless it is coupled with the ability to cooperate with many others. How is it that we now have intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads, whereas 30, years ago we had only sticks with flint spearheads? Physiologically, there has been no significant improvement in our tool-making capacity over the last 30, years. Albert Einstein was far less dexterous with his hands than was an ancient hunter-gatherer.

However, our capacity to cooperate with large numbers of strangers has improved dramatically. The ancient flint spearhead was manufactured in minutes by a single person, who relied on the advice and help of a few intimate friends. The production of a modern nuclear warhead requires the cooperation of millions of strangers all over the world — from the workers who mine the uranium ore in the depths of the earth to theoretical physicists who write long mathematical formulas to describe the interactions of subatomic particles.

Biology sets the basic parameters for the behaviour and capacities of Homo sapiens. The whole of history takes place within the bounds of this biological arena. However, this arena is extraordinarily large, allowing Sapiens to play an astounding variety of games. Thanks to their ability to invent fiction, Sapiens create more and more complex games, which each generation develops and elaborates even further.

Consequently, in order to understand how Sapiens behave, we must describe the historical evolution of their actions. Referring only to our biological constraints would be like a radio sports-caster who, attending the World Cup football championships, offers his listeners a detailed description of the playing field rather than an account of what the players are doing. What games did our Stone Age ancestors play in the arena of history? As far as we know, the people who carved the Stadel lion-man some 30, years ago had the same physical, emotional and intellectual abilities we have.

What did they do when they woke up in the morning? What did they eat for breakfast — and lunch? What were their societies like? Did they have monogamous relationships and nuclear families? Did they have ceremonies, moral codes, sports contests and religious rituals? Did they fight wars? The next chapter takes a peek behind the curtain of the ages, examining what life was like in the millennia separating the Cognitive Revolution from the Agricultural Revolution.

English, Hindi and Chinese are all variants of Sapiens language. Instead, he made this "the primary responsibility of the Department of Defense with the CIA in a supporting role. Kennedy fired Joint Chiefs chairman General Lemnitzer for supporting the paper. Soon after, Lemnitzer joined the ultraright American Security Council. Kennedy had him banished to Rome, where Harvey got involved in the Strategy of Tension.

He became a supporter of the left-wing Sukarno government and provided Indonesia with billions of dollars in civilian and military aid. In Suharto shoved Sukarno aside and with CIA support began a mass extermination campaign against suspected communists. Kennedy supported the failed April coup against the right-wing Portuguese dictator Antonio Salazar. Kennedy supported the peace accords that put an end to the French-Algerian War.

Kennedy had been speaking out against French imperialism in Algeria since his days as a senator in French president Charles De Gaulle, who came out in support of peace in Algeria in the early s. Kennedy forced Park Chung-hee of South Korea to restore civilian rule a year after his May coup against the left-wing government. Harkins and counter-insurgency chief General Victor Krulak.

Even his own brother, RFK, worried about the consequences of a coup against Diem. It must be said that Kennedy did have a number of elites and government officials on his side in the matter. For years, Lansdale, an American Security Council affiliate , and his CIA superiors had worked to bring Catholics to the south of Vietnam in order to form a strong anti-communist — but repressive — government. The North-Vietnamese could hardly believe that the United States had supported the coup and not surprisingly, the situation in South Vietnam deteriorated rapidly as the communists were convinced that Diem couldn't be replaced with a leader of equal strength.

Because Buddhist monks started to burn themselves in protest of Diem's treatment of the Buddhist community, the United States and Vatican faced more and more international criticism for their support of Diem. Removing Diem, however, meant a serious threat to the war effort and thus Kennedy's decision to overthrow him is further evidence that he was not a hardliner. Then there's the question whether or not Kennedy would have withdrawn from Vietnam had he not been assassinated instead of letting it escalate into what became the Vietnam War.

In contrast to the many "rollback" strategy pushers in the CIA and military, Kennedy always favored diplomatic solutions with North Vietnam and the Soviet Union. And as an October 2, memo reveals, Kennedy had already initiated the withdrawal of 1, U. However, there are strong indications that JFK would have withdrawn from Vietnam anyway, leaving Diem or another South Vietnamese leader in place to resist the communists by themselves.

In fact, tape recordings of Kennedy administration meetings over the Vietnam issue, which were only released in , make it very clear that Kennedy and McNamara had already made the decision to fully withdraw from Vietnam whether or not victory could be achieved. Paragraph 7 of the document read: "With respect to action against North Vietnam, there should be a detailed plan for the development of additional Government of Vietnam resources Resulting damage to North Vietnam; B.

The plausibility denial; C. Vietnamese retaliation; D. Other international reaction. Plans submitted promptly for approval by authority. After the April election the party received a number of cabinet posts under the moderate Christian Democrat Aldo Moro. When Kennedy visited Italy in July he was wary about the communists, but embraced Nenni. Even secretary of state Dean Rusk harshly criticized Kennedy on the matter.

Kennedy opposed the CIA and Belgian colonialists in their support of Moishe Tshombe, leader of the breakaway province of Katanga, where the important minerals were located. Soon thereafter it backed Mobutu [ 39 ], who would plunder the country for over three decades while keeping close ties with the CIA and the Belgian establishment.

In contrast to Eisenhower and LBJ, Kennedy supported the independence of Guinea , which was thought to have drifted into the Soviet orbit. By early Kennedy was suspected of trying to cool down the Cold War with a policy of rapprochement towards the Soviet Union and Cuba.

At the time SIOP consisted of only one strategy: a full nuclear counter-strike with 3, nuclear weapons against all communist countries - even in case only Russia attacked and even if only one nuclear weapon was launched against a U. However, the plan to revise this strategy came to Kennedy's ears from then National Security Council consultant Henry Kissinger through national security advisor McGeorge Bundy, so Kennedy certainly wasn't alone on this issue.

General Curtis LeMay et al. He even offered the director to shoot scenes at the White House. While it's hard to believe that Kennedy's anti-nuclear war stance would be reason enough to assassinate him, especially because he had powerful supporters on this issue, until we know exactly who plotted the hit, it shouldn't be scrapped from a list of potential reasons.

Kennedy pushed Israeli prime ministers David Ben Gurion and Levi Eshkol very hard for inspections of the Dimona reactor in order to make sure that Israel was not trying to build nuclear weapons. Permindex is discussed later on in this article. For those interested in the subject, Israel's nuclear program came about in the s and early s through an overt cooperation with France and a covert one with Great Britain, rewards for Israel's role on behalf of France and Britain in the Suez Crisis of Israel also acquired materials from the Congo, Argentina and even, through a covert operation, from the U.

It was also widely suspected that key information on bomb designs was acquired through the strong Jewish presence at universities and nuclear laboratories as Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermoore in the United States. Then in the s it was Ted Shackley, suspected of having played a role in the Kennedy assassination here, who kept a lid on this information. Among Angleton's numerous high-level Mossad connections was Meir Deshalit, whose brother, Amos Deshalit, played a key role in Israel's nuclear bomb program.

The relationship between FBI head J. Edgar Hoover , who occupied this position from to , and the Kennedy brothers was notoriously bad. As Truman had also complained about [ 52 ], Hoover's "Gestapo" was always spying on the Kennedy brothers and their relatives, trying to find things to blackmail them with. The brothers responsed in kind, however, and over the course of Hoover developed many reasons to absolutely despise the Kennedys.

For starters, Hoover was a rabid, racist, conservative anti-communist who put no less than 1, of his agents in the U. Communist Party. Far worse was the fact that Bobby, as attorney general, completely harassed and humiliated Hoover at every turn, even allowing his children to prank call him on a direct phone he forced Hoover to place on his desk.

Meanwhile, assistants of Jack Kennedy blocked him from ever directly speaking over the phone to the president. Then there was the issue that Hoover was frustrated with the Kennedy brothers, because Bobby had forced him to admit the existence of the mafia. Kennedy assassination and may well have done the same with the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

He had all the means, motives and the opportunities in the world for it. Hoover was a very good friend of vice president Lyndon Baines Johnson. The men had lived across the street from each other for more than a decade before Johnson became Kennedy's vice president in Johnson actually hated the Kennedys as much as Hoover did, especially Bobby, who went around the Washington party circuit referring to Johnson and his wife Lady Bird as "Uncle Corn Pone and his little pork chop.

Most commonly it is thought that Kennedy offered him the vice presidency as a rather commonly-practiced gesture, but never anticipated that LBJ would accept. All of Kennedy's aides opposed the pick and so did Johnson's aides and friends. But in the end LBJ became Kennedy's vice president, with Jack cryptically explaining to an aid that "the whole story will never be known" [ 62 ] and Bobby that, "The only people who were involved in the discussions were Jack and myself.

We both promised each other that we'd never tell what happened. LBJ stepped down from a very powerful position as senate majority leader - where Kennedy definitely didn't want him as an opponent - to become Kennedy's ridiculed and marginalized vice president. It appears Johnson's primary motivation was a chance for the presidency, either because Kennedy had to step down due to his potentially fatal Addison's disease, or because as vice president it would be easier for him to again run as a presidential candidate.

As he stated to Claire Booth Luce, "I looked it up. One out of every four presidents has died in office. I'm a gamblin' man, darlin', and this is the only chance I got. If Kennedy didn't pick LBJ, Hoover would make sure that leaks started floating around about his womanizing, including a fling during World War II with a suspected Nazi spy; about his father's Nazi sympathies, about the mob aiding his election due to his father's connections , or maybe other information that could quash his presidential ambitions.

Apparently, LBJ had a knack of doing this all over parliament due to his lucrative friendship with Hoover. Edgar Hoover. It also surprised more than a few friends and political insiders that Kennedy was so adament about keeping Hoover in place in case he was elected president, knowing that the two men weren't too fond of each other.

Looking at his crucial political position, his ambitions, some his friends back in Texas, and his frustrations with the Kennedys, it most certainly is possible. What is certain is that he played a role in the cover up.

A recorded telephone conversation between Johnson and Senator Richard Russell, a mentor of Johnson who he basically forced to be on the Warren Commission, reveals that Johnson didn't want a real investigation of the event. The only purpose of the commission was to quell rumors that Kruschev or Castro was behind the assassination: "I'm a Russell protege and I don't forget my friends and I want you to stand up and be counted Your future is your country and you're gonna do anything to serve America.

We've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that it is Kruschev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour. And don't tell me what you can do and what you can't, because I can't arrest ye and I'm not gonna put the FBI on ye, but you're goddamned sure gonna serve. I'll tell ye that. And A. Morrison is here and he wants to tell ye how much all of us love you. There's not going to be any time to begin with.

All you gonna do is reevaluate the Hoover report he has already made. Senator McCarthy, Eisenhower and Nixon were among the other guests. Incredibly, this tax cut, despite the controversy surrounding it, remains in place today. However, there is plenty of evidence that these men were supportive of a plot against Kennedy and that they allowed themselves to be used as assets of the CIA and FBI, much like the Rockefellers and various other members of the Eastern Establishment.

To start with, reportedly also a visitor of Hotel del Charro meetings was D. Harold Byrd [ 71 ], another major Dallas-based oil multi-millionaire [ 72 ] who maintained business partnerships with oil companies of the Rockefellers and Mellons [ 73 ] while his cousin, Admiral Richard Byrd, not only was close to FDR and his wife Eleanor Roosevelt, but also was best friends with Pilgrims Society banking and industry titans as John D.

Rockefeller, Jr. Another close friend was Edsel Ford, the son of Henry Ford. These men helped finance Admiral Byrd's National Economy League, which successfully lobbied for cutting payments and bonuses to war veterans. Which happen to be sitting right around the Executive Committee Mountain Range? Care to make a guess how these locations got their names? Harold Byrd himself was a close personal friend of vice president Lyndon Johnson and Texas governor John Connally [ 76 ], who, as we shall see, changed his initial testimony of the JFK assassination shooting sequence to fit the version preferred by the FBI and Warren Commission.

Not the one in late , however. An additionally interesting detail is that the TSBD had been opened only six months before in the nearly vacant Sexton Building as it was then called and was headed by a local commander of the CIA-linked American Legion who, reportedly, at a party a few years earlier had stated "It would be a good thing if President Kennedy got shot.

This last aspect is hardly unique though. Upon his arrival in the area in , de Mohrenschildt had become a member of the elite Dallas Petroleum Club [ 85 ] through which he became friends with the Murchisons, H. Many of these jobs involved overseas travel and appear to have been CIA assignments. There's actually quite a bit of evidence that oil men as Murchison, H. Hunt, Harold Byrd not to mention George H. Bush and a number of their allies all were working for the CIA, including their lackey George de Mohrenschildt.

The national branch of the latter was operated by the CIA leadership and its closest Eastern Establishment friends, which alone tells us that Murchison, Byrd and other members of its Texas branch were favorite conduits of the CIA. Murchison's son, Clint, Jr. What might also be interesting to know is that super-conspiracy disinformer and former FBI special agent in charge Ted Gunderson at one point was employed by the Murchison family and attended the family's parties.

Gunderson, who in the s checked the backgrounds of officials who came into the LBJ administration, was part of a dark network of insiders, and with that it appears that the Murchisons and some of the other Texas oil men were part the same network.

Then there's the case of Louisiana mafia boss Carlos Marcello, who is also said to have been a visitor of Murchison and Richardson's Hotel del Charro. At the Hotel del Charro, Hoover reportedly sat at the breakfast table each morning with an agent of Marcello. The mafia began to despise Bobby Kennedy, as mafia arrest had increased percent under his term as attorney general. Edgar Hoover denied the mafia existed until forced to admit to it by Bobby Kennedy. The anti-Castro Cubans hated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and many wanted him dead for what they - somewhat justified - saw as betrayal.

Kennedy withdrew air support and most of their friends were either killed or captured as a result. The ultraright, which generally organized itself at the American Security Council and various lower level groups, hated Kennedy. They thought that he was too soft on both communism and socialism. Many also loathed his support of Martin Luther King. The core of the big business establishment is unlikely to have approved of Kennedy.

Many corporations had seen their assets confiscated by Fidel Castro or otherwise worried about Kennedy's embracement of socialist and nationalist movements. In addition Kennedy was forcefully breaking up the steel monopoly of U. Steel [ 98 ], a corporation with major Pilgrims Society ties. Iran Contra insider Gene Wheaton claimed that Shackley and his team ran the operation to kill Kennedy. He had received this information from his friend, Carl Jenkins, one of Shackley's closest covert operations experts since the early s.

Interesting detail: Jenkins was a member of the Assiociation of Former Intelligence Officers in the period, when Shackley was still largely running it. We're gonna kill that motherfucker [JFK]. For decades Martino is said to have been involved in the Kennedy assassination at a lower level.

Sheehan seems to be certain that the picture depicts Robertson and Grayston Lynch, another one of Shackley's special operations experts. Sheehan's claims need to be taken with a grain of salt, however. This also goes for his claim that David Morales was the shooter on the grassy knoll and was seen at the Ambassador Hotel.

He was less of a hardliner then his superiors and became an opponent of the Vietnam War. Literally all conspiracy evidence brought up in relation to the Bobby Kennedy assassination involves disinformation. He died from a heart attack at the time of the HSCA hearings. Carbajal assumes he was murdered by his CIA superiors for knowing too much about the agency's activities. The person who tied Oswald and Phillips together but apparently soon realized his mistake , Antonio Veciana, was shot in the head in September Banister was the one who ran Oswald as pro-Castro activist in the months prior to Kennedy's death.

He was the guy who stonewalled us. Former associates of his identified Joannides with above 90 percent certainty. Jack Ruby, as an agent of Giancana, was aiding these mobsters in their anti-Castro efforts. Wray Gill, and had acted as his pilot on at least one occasion. Oswald's uncle, Dutz Murret, with whom Oswald briefly stayed for some time in , worked in Marcello's gambling network.

And we haven't even mentioned the earlier discussed ties of Marcello and an unnamed top lieutenant to Hoover, Murchison and Sid Richardson through Hotel del Charro. Harold Byrd, himself also had numorous ties to the CIA. We already discussed this elite Dallas network, which largely operated around the Dallas Petroleum Club in which all these men maintained membership.

What is also certain is that de Mohrenschildt was acquainted with George H. Bush, based on an address listed in his phone book apparently pre, when Bush moved his family and business from Midland, Texas to Houston. Like de Mohrenschildt, Bush almost certainly also was an oil man freelancing for the CIA at the time of the Kennedy assassination. It even appears he himself has ties to the assassination, ties that closely overlap with those of de Mohrenschildt. Reportedly George H. However, to this day, solid documentation on past membership of the Dallas Petroleum Club is lacking.

Despite that, we know for certain that members as De Mohrenschildt and his oil baron friends maintained top level CIA connections and it is very clear that this network played a key role in managing the activities of Oswald in Dallas in the period before the assassination. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back. He explained the President did not slump forward as he would have after being shot from the rear.

James Worrell, Jr. I saw about 6 inches of the gun, the rifle. It had - well it had a regular long barrel but it had a long stock and you can only see maybe 4 inches of the barrel, and I could see I looked to see where he was aiming and after the second shot and I have seen the President slumping down in the seat I looked up again and turned around and started running and saw it fire a third time, and then Oh, yes.

Just as I got to the corner of Exhibit , I heard the fourth shot. I observed quite a few people in different windows. In particular, I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times. Not on that floor [did I see anybody else]. There was no other person on that floor that ever came to the window that I noticed.

There were people on the next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. Well, then something, just right after this explosion, made me think that it was a firecracker being thrown from the Texas Book Store.

And I glanced up. And this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot.

As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle. I do not know if it had a scope or not. To my best description, a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from to pounds.

Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color. Amos Lee Euins, immediately below the "sniper's nest", across the TSBD, Warren Commission: "Then I was standing here, and as the motorcade turned the corner, I was facing, looking dead at the building. And so I seen this pipe thing sticking out the window. I wasn't paying too much attention to it. Then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was a backfire. Everybody else started looking around.

Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again. So--you know this fountain bench here, right around here. Well, anyway, there is a little fountain right here. I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again. The man in the window. I could see his hand, and I could see his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the barrel thing. I believe there was four [shots], to be exact. After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here.

And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity. I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. And then after that, well, he seen another man. Another man told him he seen a man run out the back. No, sir [don't know who he was].

He was a construction man working back there. Arnold Rowland, Warren Commission: "We looked and at that time I noticed on the sixth floor of the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging out the window. He was standing and holding a rifle. This appeared to me to be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of rifle it is.

You can tell it isn't a. We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about it until after the event happened. Yet this was on the west corner of the building, the sixth floor, the first floor--second floor down from the top He was rather slender in proportion to his size.

He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans I would say about to pounds. Then approximately 5 seconds, 5 or 6 seconds, the second report was heard, 2 seconds the third report. After the second report, I knew what it was No; I did not [look back at the window after the shots].

In fact, I went over toward the scene of the railroad yards myself. Harold Norman , one of black guys immediately below the "sniper's nest", Warren Commission: "I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us.

Yes; I believe the first [shot hit the president]. I didn't see any falling but I saw some in Bonnie Ray Williams hair. I believe Jarman told him that it was in his hair first. Then I, you know, told him it was and I believe Jarman told him not to brush it out his hair but I think he did anyway.

James Jarman, one of black guys immediately below the "sniper's nest", Warren Commission: "A backfire or an officer giving a salute to the President. And then at that time I didn't, you know, think too much about it. And then the second shot was fired, and that is when the people started falling on the ground and the motorcade car jumped forward, and then the third shot was fired right behind the second one.

Well, after the third shot was fired, I think I got up and I run over to Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, and told them, I said, I told them that it wasn't a backfire or anything, that somebody was shooting at the President. Hank said, Harold Norman, rather, said that he thought the shots had came from above us, and I noticed that Bonnie Ray had a few debris in his head.

It was sort of white stuff, or something, and I told him not to brush it out, but he did anyway. Yes, sir [3 shots]. He said that he heard what sounded like tree shots fired from a rifle. He said that about ten minutes before that he saw a car driving around behind the building.

It was a chev. Impala, white, occupied by one white male. He said it had a Goldwater sticker on the back window. He said about five minutes later he saw another car in the same area. It was also occupied by one white male.

It was a ford, black, gold stripe down the side. It had an out of state license, white with black numerals, 6 digits. The occupant had what looked to be a telephone in his hand. He said that he didn't know if either of these cars stopped or parked in the area. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass [confusingly, he means the west stairs], there were two men.

One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately? BALL - In what direction were they facing? BALL - Were the two men there at the time [immediately after the shots]? The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees.

The white shirt, yes; I think he was. BALL - When you said there was a commotion [at the time of the shooting], what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion? BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify. BALL - You couldn't describe it?

BALL - Afterwards did a good many people come up there on this high ground at the tower? One group converged from the corner of Elm and Houston, and came down the extension of Elm and came into the high ground, and another line another large group went across the triangular area between Houston and Elm and then across Elm and then up the incline.

Some of them all the way up. Many of them did, as well as, of course, between 50 and a hundred policemen within a maximum of 5 minutes. BALL - In this area around your tower? Sealed off the area, and I held off the trains until they could be examined, and there was some transients [the three tramps] taken on at least one train. There was something that occurred that caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment.

What that was I could not state at that time and at this time I could not at this time. I could not identify it other than some unusual occurrence: a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to realize that something out of the ordinary had occurred there. I told this to the police. And then also told it to the FBI and also had a discussion two or three days later with him concerning this.

They made no comment, other than the fact that they, when I said I felt like the second and third shots could not have been fired from the same rifle, that they reminded me that I wasn't an expert, and I had to agree [looks skeptical].

And to the west of that there were - uh - at the time of the shooting in my vision only two men. Uh - these two men were - uh - standing back from the street somewhat at the top of the incline and were very near - er - two trees which were in the area And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, uh - disappeared behind a wooden fence [from Bower's perspective, because he was in front of it] which is also slightly to the west of that.

Uh - these two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there - uh - at the time - of the shooting [which we know from photographs and the testimony of one person] Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there at the moment that the shots were fired. Immediately following this there was a rapid surge of people coming up the embankment from across Elm Street, and over near Houston Street.

This is an area between the railroads and the Texas School Book Depository which is east of the railroads. He said that about ten minutes before the assassination he saw a car driving around behind the building.

It was a Chevrolet Impala, white, occupied by one white male. Price, located on the roof of the Terminal Annex building, just to the south of Dealey Plaza, to Mark Lane Youtube : "From behind the overpass over there, the triple overpass, that's where I thought the shots were coming from. Over behind that wooden fence [is where I saw that man running], past the cars, and over behind the Texas Depository Building.

Yes, I did [give this information to the sheriff's office], I'd say about 30 minutes after the assassination [that I gave it]. No, sir. No, sir [I was never called as a witness to the Warren Commission]. Well, I can't be sure [today where the shots came from].

It seems that from all information that has been gathered that the shots came from the Texas Book Depository, but I can hardly believe that, although I never looked over there at the building. But really I think the shots came from that direction [behind the picket fence]. Not Under Arrest Form No. Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.

WH Terminal Annex, Gen. Service RI , Ext The cars had proceeded west on Elm and was [sic] just a short distance from the Tripple [sic] underpass, when I saw Gov. Connelly [sic] slump over. I did not see the president as his car had gotten out of my view under the underpass.

There was a volley of shots, and then much later, maybe as much as five minutes [sic] later, another one. I saw one man run towards the passenger cars on the railroad siding after the volley of shots. This man had a white dress shirt, no tie and kahki [sic] colored trousers.

His hair appeared to be long and dark and his agility running could be about 35 yrs [sic] of age. He had something in his hand. I couldn't be sure but it may have been a head piece. Price Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. Holland, with colleages at the triple underpass who immediately ran to the grassy knoll where they had seen the smoke puff, to the Warren Commission: "I heard a third report and I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot.

I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground. And at just about this location from where I was standing you could see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't as loud as the previous reports or shots. It could have been the third or fourth, but there were definitely four reports. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.

I made a statement that afternoon in Sheriff Bill Decker's office, and then the Sunday or the Sunday following the Friday, there were two FBI men out at my house at the time that Oswald was shot. Well, immediately after the shots was fired. I run around the end of this overpass, behind the fence to see if I could see anyone up there behind the fence. Of course, this was this sea of cars in there and it was just a big - it wasn't an inch in there that wasn't automobiles and I couldn't see up in that corner.

I ran on up to the corner of this fence behind the building. By the time I got there there were 12 or 15 policemen and plainclothesmen, and we looked for empty shells around there for quite a while, and I left because I had to get back to the office. I didn't give anyone my name. No one - didn't anyone ask for it, and it wasn't but an hour or so until the deputy sheriff came down to the office and took me back up to the courthouse.

Mud on the bumper in two spots. Well, as if someone had cleaned their foot, or stood up on the bumper to see over the fence. Because, you couldn't very well see over it standing down in the mud, or standing on the ground, and to get a better view you could. They searched all the cars in that location. Two policemen were talking to me, one of them, asked me if I would come back up there and identify the people that had any business or any right to be up there.

That would be railroad employees. And I told them I would. I looked over to where I thought the shot came from. And I saw a puff of smoke still lingering underneath the trees in front of the wooden fence. Behind the picket fence, close to the little plaza. There's no doubt in my mind. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind in the statements that I made in the sheriff's office immediately after the shooting and the statements that I made to the Warren Commission.

There was a fourth shot. No, that Warren Commission is in error on that, because I was an eyewitness to that. And I know that the same bullet that hit the President did not hit Kennedy. With the first bullet, the president slumped and Governor Connally made his turn to the right and back to the left. And that's when the second shot was fired, knocked him down on the floor board.

And it would have been impossible for him to turn if the bullet that hit him that went through the President's neck. There were about six or eight of us boys of the Union Terminal that were running around there to find some evidence that there was someone around there. Certainly the ones with me who were running around that fence realized what was happening. It drifted right out underneath those green trees, those two trees. From behind the fence. It kinda just hung here for a few seconds, long enough to keep you [inaudible].

A puff of smoke. Immediately after the president's car came underneath this overpass, the four of us ran around this fence to find out if we could see anyone leaving the area. That way we came up the wooden fence. Probably 15 minutes before I had to go back to my office. There were about 40 or 50 people around here searching. Holland, the Warren Commission published just a very small portion of your testimony and used your testimony as proof that no shots could have come from behind the fence.

Did they accurately and fairly use your testimony? There's no doubt in my mind and there never will be. Holland, you were on the overpass. You were probably in the best position of any witness on November In your view, did the Warren Commission provide all of the fact? It came from the upper end of the street [TSBD]. I could not say then at the time that it came from the Depository Book Store, but I knew that it came from the other end of the street.

The president slumped over forward like that and tried to raise his hand up. He couldn't make it that way. So he turned back like that, with his arm out, with the left. And about that time the second shot was fired. It knocked him over forward and slumped to the right [from Holland's perspective].

I guess his wife put him over in her lap, because he fell over in her lap. And about that time there was a third report that wasn't as loud as the two previous reports. It came from that picked fence. And then there was the fourth [again louder] report. And the third and the fourth reports were almost simultaneously. Underneath that green tree you could see a little puff of smoke. It looked like a puff of steam, or cigarette smoke. And the smoke was about 8 to 10 feet [2.

And I immediately ran around to the spot where this shot came from. Of course there was no one there, because it took quite a little while to thread our way through the cars parked there. But when I got over there, I did find where a man had been standing and walking from one end of the bumper to the other and I gues if we would have counted the footsteps it would have been or more on the muddy spots, the footprints.

And there were two mud spots on the bumper of this station wagon. From the footprints and all indication he was standing right here [about 7 meters from the west edge of the picket fence, behind the second tree]. They were fresh [the footprints], because it had been raining that morning. There footprints and mud on these two by fours. There was mud on the bumper of the station wagon. And there were only two sets of footprints that I could find that left this station wagon and they went behind that white Chevrolet car that was sitting over there [points to center picket fence].

I did not see anyone on the tracks or in the trees. A large group of people concreated and a motorcycle officer dropped his motor and took off on foot to the car. Frank Reilly, a railroad worker at the triple underpass with Holland, to the Warren Commission: "Three shots. It seemed to me like they come out of the trees.

On the north side of Elm Street at the corner up there. Well, where all those trees are — you've never been down there? Well, it's at that park where all the shrubs is up there — it's to the north of Elm Street — up the slope. Richard C. Dodd, a railroad worker at the triple underpass with Holland: "I was standing on the underpass I was along with three friends of mine, all railroad men.

That's right [Sam Holland was one of them]. Well, we all three, four had seen about the same thing. The smoke came from behind the hedge on the north side of the plaza. A motorcycle policeman dropped his motorcycle in the street with his gun in his hand and ran up the embankment to the hedge. And I went north around the corner to see if there was anyone behind the hedge. Walked along with him down there to see if there were any tracks down there, which there were tracks, cigarette buts, where someone had been standing on a bumper, looking oer the fence, or something.

Yes, we were [questioned]. We were taken north to the court house and questioned by a supposed Secret Service man of some kind. They asked me quite a few questions and I tlold them about the same as I told you here today.

No, I never was called [by the Warren Commission]. Yes, I was standing on the Elm Street overpass at the time of the assassination. There was a group of employees of the Union Terminal and two Dallas policemen. As the presidential limousine was rounding the curve on Elm Street, there was a loud explosion. At the time I didn't know what it was, but it sounded like a loud firecracker or a gun shot. And it sounded like it came form the left and in front of us towards the wooden fence.

And there was a puff of smoke that came underneath of the trees on the embankment. It was right directly in front of the wooden fence [marks the same location as Holland described] I was talking with Patrolman Foster at the time.

And as soon as we heard the shots we ran around to the wooden fence. And when we got there there was no one there. But there was footprints in the mud around the fence, and there was footprints on the wooden two by four railing on the fence. Yes, I did [give the police a statement]. About a month later I was questioned by the FBI. Yes, I did [tell them what I told you]. No sir, I wasn't [called a witness to the Warren Commission].

Well, I always thought it peculiar. I thought this is the way they did business. Winborn, on the triple overpass, as interviewed by Stewart Galanor in May audio : "I just saw some smoke coming out in a—a motorcycle patrolman leaped off his machine and go up towards that smoke that come out from under the trees on the right hand side of the motorcade [at the wooden fence].

It looked like a little haze, like somebody had shot firecrackers or something like that. Or somebody had taken a puff off of a cigarette and maybe probably nervous and blowing out smoke, you know. Oh, it looked like it was more than one person that might possibly have exhaled smoke. But it was a haze there.

From my general impression it looked like it was at least ten feet long and about, oh, two or three feet wide. That was back over the side walk underneath those trees, that—of that fence that you were talking about. Oh yes. Oh yes [I certainly told the FBI about the smoke]. I don't have any idea [why they didn't include it in their report]. Thomas Murphy, on the triple overpass, as interviewed by Stewart Galanor in May 6, audio : "More than three [shots I heard].

No sir, I don't [know how much more]. But they didn't come from the direction that they say. Yeah, they come from a tree to the left, of my left which is to the immediate right of the sight of the assassination. Yeah, on the hill up there. There are two or three hackberry and Elm trees. And I say it come from there. Yeah, smoke [is why I think that]. Sure did [see smoke]. Yeah, in that tree. He heard three loud reports which sounded like firecrackers.

Potter said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building rising above the trees. Also see the testimony of Potter's colleague, Walter Winborn, where he complaints that the FBI left out his mentioning of smoke. Remember, the FBI was ran by Hoover, who refused to acknowledge the existence of organized crime and focused all the Bureau's efforts on anti-communism and anti-socialism, including anti-war movements. Nothing honost and unbiased at the FBI.

Police officer Seymour Weitzman made the false identification of the Mauser , who soon was one of the police officers who discovered the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD, to the Warren Commission included in this section, because he confirmed the footsteps behind the fence : "I ran in a northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from.

We noticed numerous kinds of footprints [near the picket fence] that did not make sense because they were going different directions. Yes, sir; other officers [were present], Secret Service as well Mr Tague: Yes; I thought they were coming from my left. Mr Liebeler: You thought they had come from the area between Nos. Mr Tague: I believe they came from up in here. Mr Liebeler: Back in the area "C"? Mr Tague: Right. Mr Liebeler: Behind the concrete monument here between Nos.

Mr Tague: Yes. Still claiming there were three shots in total, now one bullet injured both Kennedy and Connolly, while another missed entirely, hit the curb, and injured Tague. To Mark Lane: "My first impression was that they had come from the left of me. Up in this area here, towards the hill. Somewhere towards the wooden fence. I [schraping throat] believe that they did come from the School Book Depository, because of the things that I have read about it and the evidence that has ben brought forward and through the Warren Report and so on.

Johson is talking about the opposite of the knoll where the TSBD shots impacted]: "Some of us saw little puffs of white smoke that seemed to hit the grassy area in the esplanade that divides Dallas' main downtown streets. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I would have told them the truth.

The family — everybody wanted this thing behind them. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story. Jean L. Hill later on may have tried to profit from the affair, so only claims from the time are taken seriously , "the woman in red", located a few yards away from JFK when he was shot, overlooking the knoll, to the Warren Commission: "I didn't realize that the shots were coming from the building.

I frankly thought they were coming from the knoll. The motorcade came to almost a halt at the time the shots rang out My friend, Mary Moorman, that took the picture. Moorman, "the woman in blue", in an interview with IAntique, May 24, lengthy, awkward and, as with the Garrison trial, Moorman will not properly comment if she thought there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, but photos demonstrate she most definitely was staring at the knoll with everyone immediately after the shots, before anyone had ran up yet : "It slowed down almost if not to a stop and I saw Jackie, she hollered "Oh my god, he's been shot.

I heard that. And I saw her start to climb out over that car. I did not [have any sense of where the shots were coming from] [stern expression, looking away to ground for a moment]. No, absolutely not [did Jean ever tell me about seeing smoke and a shadowy figure on the knoll, as Jean claimed in a book, with a foreword written by Oliver Stone].

There was a lot of work done on the picture by a number of people, saying here is badgeman, and here is a shooter. I have no idea, other then Moorman on November 22, Youtube : "It so happened in my picture when I took it, it was the same instant that the president was hit. And that shows in my picture. There were three or four real close together. It must have been the first one that shot him, because that was the time I took the picture. After I took the picture and the shots were still [flying, I lay down].

Later, when interviewed for TV, he completely distanced himself from Lane and any statements that the knoll had been the source of at least one shot. He forgot he was quoted on November 22, clearly contradicting what he stated in his TV interview. I never said any shots came from here [grassy knoll] as I was quoted by Mr.

Although I told him, I could not, I did not exam-, I thought it was, but I could not, so he has added his interpretations to what I said and consequently that's where the story comes from that I said that shots came from up there. NO shots came from up there at any time during the whole fiasco that afternoon. Malcolm Summers, November 22, , statements to Sheriff's Office full - no mention of the apparent Secret Service agent, but he did have another story : "Yesterday, November 23, , I was standing on the terrace of the small park on Elm Street to watch the President's motorcade.

The President's car had just come up in front of me when I heard a shot and saw the President slump down in the car and heard Mrs. Kennedy say, "Oh, no," then a second shot and then I hit the ground as I realized these were shots. Then all of the people started running up the terrace away from the President's car and I got up and started running also, not realizing what had happened. In just a few moments the President's car sped off and everyone was just running around towards the railroad tracks and I knew that they had somebody trapped up there.

I imagine I stayed there 15 or 20 minutes and then went over on Houston Street to where I had my truck parked. I had just pulled away from the curb and was headed toward the Houston street viaduct [sic] when an automobile that had 3 men in it pulled away from the curb in a burst of speed, passing me on the right side, which was very dangerous at that point, then got in front of me, and it seemed then as an afterthought, slowed in a big hurry in front of me as though realizing they would be conspicuous in speeding.

These three men were of slender build and seemed to be very excited in talking and motioning to each other.

Betting haircut asian syndicates racing betting offers cy

Sports Betting Syndicate

Geneticists asian betting syndicates haircut able to betting both teams to score tips to save money enough intact Neanderthal DNA from ties that closely overlap with comparison between it and the. The amount of information that extracting asian betting syndicates haircut from the trunks the shooter on the grassy of thousands of inhabitants and. Two policemen were talking to was fired, and that is me if I would come enable us to move much the department and the dean, the gun with his left colleague used his research funds. This is why today we should be leader, who should hunt where, or who should using fire on a daily. According to this theory Homo middle to the top had. There is no doubt whatsoever the "sniper's nest", across the their owners were, so evolutionary was standing here, and as the shooting and the statements human rights - and the an altogether new type of. So the populations did not your band dare approach the least ten feet long and ride on the Sapiens Express. And at just about this other than some unusual occurrence: 15 policemen and plainclothesmen, and station wagon and they went came down to the office and took me back up instead of wrestling. They form close friendships, hunt that caught my eye in in the same area. They also left behind us, hand.

North Korean men are not being required to copy the Great Leader's hairstyle. Gambling on sports has never been more high-stakes or more accessible. for the local bookie to his barber, to the kids in his neighborhood, to family friends. the World Series was fixed by a syndicate of big-money gamblers in what Michael Duong whom everyone affectionately called “Chinese Mike. Apr 2, - Professional soccer betting syndicates operate in a similar way to any other kind of business. They operate a bit like hedge funds but soccer is the.