#2208: Marine Links JonBenét’s Serco Tags and Jamie JABS to Sony Obama Boeing Foreign-Faction Hackers
Plum City – (AbelDanger.net): United States Marine Field McConnell has linked virtual identities, allegedly tracked through the JonBenét Ramsey crime scene with or by Serco’s offender tags and Jamie Gorelick’s Joint Automated Booking System (JABS), to the “foreign faction” hacking of Sony Pictures, the Obama administration and the Boeing company.
McConnell claims Gorelick warned Serco that JonBenét’s father John Benett Ramsey had discovered the Clintons’ use of virtual identities (KSM!) in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the murder of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown on April 3, 1996 and Serco then tasked Gorelick with the joint booking of a foreign-faction team of “personalities” from the IMDb database with pedophiles ‘on the tag‘ from the Boulder County Jail to manage the JonBenét crime scene.
McConnell claims that Serco recruited a Barry Soetoro through its foreign-faction National Visa Center and used the document-conversion services of its protégé Base One Technologies to place a Barack Obama virtual identity in the White House in support of a foreign-faction hack of the National Command Authority’s Defense Red Switch Network.
McConnell notes that Serco now controls the Defense Red Switch Network and hence the National Command Authority through a phony outsourced contract with the 24th Air Force Cyber Operations Support and that Serco has equipped its dirty banker HSBC at Canada Square with the Joint Automated Booking System (JABS) needed to deploy virtual identities as killers and hackers to manage crime-scene investigations anytime and anywhere (cf. MH Flights 17 and 370).
McConnell invites readers to check Serco’s operation of foreign-faction tagging, hacking, killing and blackmail services through its bankers at Canada Square and its ultra-secret access to a JABS / IMDb database of snuff films in the custody of Amazon director and former 9/11 Commissioner, Jamie “Mistress of Disaster” Gorelick.
Prequel 3: Hackers
“Monday, August 6, 2012
I first read about James Kolar’s new book, Foreign Faction, in a July 18 Daily Beast review by Carol McKinley, New Clues in JonBenet Ramsey Murder. As I read, it became clear that Kolar wasn’t buying either the intruder theory or the odd notion, put forth by former DA Mary Lacy, that DNA evidence exonerated the Ramseys. This was heartening. Ever since Lacy’s notorious letter informing John that he and Patsy (recently deceased) were officially cleared, I had given up hope that JonBenet’s killer would ever be brought to justice.
I’d heard rumors that the new DA, Stanley Garnett, was reopening the case, and attempting to question their son, Burke, but subsequently it became clear that Burke had no interest in cooperating, even after all these years. So it all seemed just hopeless. Now, however, there was this brand new study of the case — by Lacy’s lead investigator. And he wasn’t buying any of her nonsense. Whether or not this book actually “blows the lid off the case” as advertised, it was certainly going to renew public interest in it, which as far as I’m concerned is a good thing. Inspired by this new development, I decided to jump once more into the fray by starting this blog. So thank you for that, James Kolar; or on the other hand, damn you for that– because a small voice inside me keeps insisting this will all be for naught.
I immediately ordered the book. It took a while but finally arrived, and I have now had an opportunity to go over it in some detail (though admittedly not having the patience to read every page, as most of this story is familiar to me). So what do I think? It’s an interesting, well organized, readable work. Up until Chapter Twenty-Seven, when he describes his “January 2006 Presentation,” Kolar presents a valuable and frequently insightful take on the case, bolstered by some surprising new evidence.
Especially gratifying is Kolar’s demolition of Smit’s imaginative elaboration of the intruder theory. Referring to a highly illuminating, never before released police video (available on the Daily Beast site), he points to a triangular cobweb sitting in the corner of the same basement window that, according to Smit, the intruder must have both entered and left by. Clearly no one could have gone through that window without disturbing the cobweb — or any of the layers of dirt and grime depicted in the photo he presents. He carefully assesses Smit’s outrageous stun gun theory, giving it more attention, imo, than it deserves, demonstrating its many weaknesses and ultimately dismissing it as the nonsense it is.
Kolar’s book is especially valuable for what it reveals about the vaunted DNA evidence. Various bits of partial DNA found on the victim or her clothing were found to originate with six independent sources. Count ’em: six. Significantly Lacy ignored all the others when insisting that one source and one source only had to be from the attacker. The rest of the DNA evidence was simply buried — until now. As I and many others suspected from the start, and Kolar clearly demonstrates, the famous “intruder” DNA is almost certainly an artifact, with no bearing on the case whatsoever. Unless one wants to posit a highly organized team of six intruders, as Kolar does in a hilarious tongue in cheek scenario presented at the beginning. Spoiler alert. This is not what he thinks really happened, but he doesn’t make that absolutely clear for some time. Very funny, James. You had me going there for a while.
In chapter Twenty Five, “The Evolution of John Ramsey’s Statements,” Kolar wonders at the different versions of what happened as reported by John at various stages of the investigation, and wonders also about certain things he claims to have observed that looked suspicious but were not reported to the authorities until he was interrogated months later. I’ve often wondered about those things as well, so it’s gratifying to learn I wasn’t alone.
Unfortunately, as with so many others, Kolar focuses on Patsy Ramsey as writer of the note and stager-in-chief, rehashing many of the same old misconceptions, ill founded suspicions and unfounded “expert” opinions that have taken the investigation round and round in circles for years. The case he makes against Patsy resembles that of Steve Thomas, whose take on the case fell totally flat when presented before justice Julie E. Carnes in a related civil suit. As I’ve demonstrated, there is no case to be made against Patsy — but John was “ruled out” and Kolar, like so many others, accepts that curious ruling as Gospel from on High.
The book reaches a fateful turning point with the chapter alluded to above, Chapter Twenty Seven, titled “The January 2006 Presentation.” Up until this point, Kolar has presented a probing, well argued case against the intruder theory in all its forms, exposed John Ramsey’s misdirection and deceit, thoroughly debunked Lacy’s absurd exoneration of the Ramseys, and made the usual case for Patsy as bumbling collaborator in an elaborate coverup. Now comes the moment when he must put everything together to come up with the answer we’ve all been waiting for. If there was no intruder, then either John, Patsy or Burke must have killed JonBenet. Which was it?
And at this crucial point, the patient, observant, highly professional investigator suddenly transforms into an amateurish, imaginative speculator of the Lou Smit school. Here’s what he has to say about the woman who, in his mind, must have written the note:
I didn’t quite buy the hypothesis that Patsy had lost her temper and struck JonBenet. . . I just couldn’t reconcile the fact that Patsy was, by all accounts, a loving and doting mother, and I had difficulty envisioning her ever brutalizing either one of her children.
Well, what about John? He continues for two pages without considering him at all. Could he have had a motive?
In considering the components of this theory, I took into consideration Lou Smit’s perspective regarding this loving, Christian family. I asked the following:
Did John or Patsy have any motive to intentionally murder their daughter?
I believed the likely answer to that question was No.
I then pondered the theory that the death had been an accident:
Was it possible that Patsy had lost her temper during an argument with JonBenet, and struck her with an object?
It was clear that someone had struck a blow to the head of JonBenet, and that it had not been self-inflicted. If it wasn’t Patsy, then who?
Who indeed? What about the possibility that John could have done it? Amazingly, Kolar is silent on this topic. As a law enforcement professional he would know very well that “loving” fathers have been known to both molest and murder their daughters. It’s happened even in the “best” of families. But he sees no reason to even consider a motive for John. It’s a topic he simply refuses to discuss. John’s being “ruled out” as writer of the note seems to have leaked out by some strange process of osmosis into his being ruled out as murderer also. Which leads Kolar to the following set of options:
If the parents didn’t intentionally kill their daughter, and if there was no intruder, then why go to all the effort of staging a cover-up?
Who would benefit?
Who was being protected?
And at this point, from here on in, Kolar is off to the races, on a quest to convince us that the person who killed JonBenet, striking her with a single devastating blow that cracked her skull from end to end, was her frail nine year old brother, Burke.
I’ll continue next time with a consideration of the evidence Kolar offers in support of this very odd and unexpected theory.”
“The operational workflow of JABS begins with the arrest of a suspect by a federal law enforcement agency. Using its own booking system, the agency collects booking information (including both identifying information and arrest-related information, as described in section 2) and creates a file for the information, called a booking record. The agency then sends the booking record to JABS via secure electronic message transported by JCON. JABS validates each booking package and forwards digital fingerprints to IAFIS for identification. IAFIS determines whether the individual has a criminal history; if so, then IAFIS sends this information (the “rap sheet”) to JABS, where this criminal history information is collated with the individual’s booking record. If the individual has been previously booked as a federal prisoner, then IAFIS will send JABS the FBI number assigned to that individual. If the individual has never been booked as a federal prisoner, then IAFIS will create an FBI number for the individual and send it to JABS. Once JABS receives the FBI number, the booking record is complete. JABS then forwards a copy of the rap sheet and any other fingerprint or identification information from IAFIS to the originating law enforcement agency.
Authorized JABS users may access the JABS database through a secure connection to JCON using their agencies’ booking stations or a web browser. Users may then retrieve booking information – by known offender characteristics such as name, social security number, date of birth, or vehicle license number – for criminal processing purposes or for intelligence or investigative purposes. Users can then view and print the offender summary, personal history report, booking history, and photographs. Downstream processing agencies, such as the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), access JABS to capture the online booking package and…
JABS has nine major interfaces – five external and four internal. The first is a generic interface between JABS and a law enforcement agency’s booking stations. The second is the interface between JABS and IAFIS. The third is the JABS web interface between JABS and an end user. The fourth is the internal web service and web interfaces between JABS and USMS. The fifth interface is internal and provides a daily FTP push to OneDOJ (a criminal law enforcement data repository). The sixth interface is internal and provides data to OCDETF via e-mail with file attachments. The seventh interface is internal and provides data to DEA via e-mail with file attachments on a monthly basis. The eighth interface is external and provides data to ACTIC via FTP to a JCON-hosted FTP server with file attachments on a weekly basis. The ninth interface is external and interfaces with the query tool to the Chicago Police Department’s Investigative Resources System.
Other identifying numbers (specify): FBI number; state identification number; vehicle identification number; license plate number; visa number [from Serco!]; arrest identification number; military identification; U.S. Marshals Service number; BOP register number”
“Opened in 1994 as the successor to the Transitional Immigrant Visa Processing Center in Rosslyn, Va., the NVC centralizes all immigrant visa preprocessing and appointment scheduling for overseas posts. The NVC collects paperwork and fees before forwarding a case, ready for adjudication, to the responsible post.
The center also handles immigrant and fiancé visa petitions, and while it does not adjudicate visa applications, it provides technical assistance and support to visa-adjudicating consular officials overseas. Only two Foreign Service officers, the director and deputy director, work at the center, along with just five Civil Service employees.
They work with almost 500 contract employees doing preprocessing of visas, making the center one of the largest employers in the Portsmouth area.
The contractor, Serco, Inc., has worked with the NVC since its inception and with the Department for almost 18 years.
The NVC houses more than 2.6 million immigrant visa files, receives almost two million pieces of mail per year and received more than half a million petitions from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in 2011. Its file rooms’ high-density shelves are stacked floor-to-ceiling with files, each a collection of someone’s hopes and dreams and each requiring proper handling.”
“North Korea demands joint inquiry with US into Sony Pictures hack
Pyongyang denies responsibility for cyber-attack and threatens grave consequences if Washington continues to blame it
theguardian.com, Saturday 20 December 2014 12.46 GMT
North Korea has proposed holding a joint inquiry with the US into the hacking of Sony Pictures, claiming it can prove it did not carry out the cyber-attack.
The foreign ministry in Pyongyang denied responsibility for the highest-profile corporate hack in history, and said there would be grave consequences if Washington refused to collaborate on an investigation and continued to blame it.
The state KCNA news agency added that claims North Korea had conducted the attack on Sony in revenge for the controversial comedy The Interview, a multimillion-dollar comedy starring James Franco and Seth Rogen that depicts the assassination of Kim Jong-un, were “groundless slander”.
KCNA quoted the foreign ministry as saying: “As the United States is spreading groundless allegations and slandering us, we propose a joint investigation with it into this incident.
“Without resorting to such tortures as were used by the CIA, we have means to prove that this incident has nothing to do with us.”
North Korea’s comments came after Barack Obama said Sony had made a mistake in axing the comedy, which had been due for release on Christmas Day.
Workers remove the poster for “The Interview” from a billboard in Hollywood
Speaking on Friday after the FBI pinned the blame for the cyber-attack on North Korea, Obama said: “We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States, because if somebody is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary that they don’t like, or news reports that they don’t like.
“Or even worse imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self-censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of somebody whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.
“That’s not who we are. That’s not what America is about.”
Obama said he was sympathetic to Sony’s plight but added: “I wish they had spoken to me first.”
Sony Entertainment’s CEO, Michael Lynton, hit back, saying the company had been in touch with White House officials over the hacking before the film was pulled.
Lynton argued the comedy had been pulled because it would have been impossible to screen after major cinema groups backed out for fear of terrorist attacks.
Lynton told CNN he hoped the film would still be shown, but added no video on demand services had supported a release.
“We have not backed out. We have always had every desire to let the American public see it,” Lynton said.
On Wednesday Sony issued a statement saying it had “no further release plans” for the film and has also pulled its website and promotional material from an official YouTube channel.
The FBI has been investigating suspected links with North Korea’s Bureau 121 hacking unit since early December, and on Friday officials said a technical analysis of the malware used in the attack had been linked to other similar software “that the FBI knows North Korean actors previously developed”.
“We are deeply concerned about the destructive nature of this attack on a private sector entity and the ordinary citizens who worked there. Further, North Korea’s attack on SPE [Sony Pictures Entertainment] reaffirms that cyberthreats pose one of the gravest national security dangers to the United States,” the FBI said in a statement.
The White House had already labelled the attack a “serious national security matter”, but Obama would not be drawn on Washington’s reponse. “We will respond, we will respond proportionally, and in a place and time that we choose. It’s not something that I will announce here today at this press conference,” he said.
Sony has been left reeling from the November attack, after thousands of confidential documents, including employee social security numbers, personal emails, unreleased films and executive pay were published online.
The hacking group Guardians of Peace (GOP) that claimed responsibility for the attack demanded Sony pull release of The Interview, which it did on Wednesday after threats invoking 9/11 were made against cinemagoers, and after major US theater groups cancelled screenings.
The decision has drawn the ire of many high-profile names in Hollywood, who have also criticised the press for publishing details from the hacked documents.
George Clooney called on Hollywood to get The Interview released in any format possible. “We cannot be told we can’t see something by Kim Jong-un, of all fucking people … we have allowed North Korea to dictate content and that is just insane,” he said in an interview with Deadline.
GOP reportedly sent Sony executives a message on Thursday evening, calling the studio’s decision to cancel the release “very wise”.
The statement was written in broken English and leaked to CNN. It continued: “Now we want you never let the movie released, distributed or leaked in any form of, for instance, DVD or piracy.
And we want everything related to the movie, including its trailers, as well as its full version down from any website hosting them immediately.”
“February 4, 2012
Does Obama really lack cool phones?
In April last year, US president Obama told some fundraisers that he was disappointed by the communications equipment he found in the White House:
“I always thought I was gonna have like really cool phones and stuff,” he said during a Q&A session with contributors at a fund-raising meeting in Chicago on April 14, 2011.
“We can’t get our phones to work.” Acting out his exasperation, he said: “Come on, guys. I’m the president of the United States! Where’s the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up? It doesn’t happen.”
Obama made these remarks after the press pool had left and may not have realized some reporters back at the White House could still hear his comments. The president was probably responding to a question about bottlenecks in technological innovation and he used his White House experience as an example.
A lot of people would probably like to believe these remarks of the president, symbolizing the outdated state of the federal government. But in fact, what Obama said, isn’t quite true.
In 2006-2007 president George W. Bush had the White House Situation Room completely renovated, providing it with state-of-the-art communications facilities. Since then the real Situation Room has all the phones and videoscreens and other stuff, which was before only seen in movies.
Also, when Obama took over the office in January 2009, he found quite a cool phone on the presidential desk in the Oval Office: an Integrated Services Telephone 2, or IST-2. This is a so called red phone (I’ll explain that term in a later blog post) capable of making both secure and non-secure calls from one single instrument:
Not a cool phone? An IST-2 telephone on Obama’s desk, March 29, 2009
(White House photo by Pete Souza)
The IST-2 was installed in the White House in 2007. It’s a phone specially designed for the US Defense Red Switch Network (DRSN), which connects the president and the Pentagon with all major military command centers. These new phones were part of an upgrade of the communications system, which became necessary after some serious communication problems occured during the 9/11 attacks.
Therefore, the problems caused by outdated equipment should have been solved under president Bush. This would leave nothing to complain about for Obama anymore.
But there’s an other interesting fact. Only a few weeks before Obama made his aforementioned remarks in April 2011, the rather rare IST-phone had just been replaced by two more ordinary sets:
The Cisco 7975 and the Lucent 8520 on Obama’s desk, July 31, 2011
Also on the desk appears to be the iPad Obama got from Steve Jobs in May 2011
(White House photo by Pete Souza)
Now we see a Cisco 7975G Unified IP Phone (with expansion module 7916) behind a Avaya/Lucent 8520T on Obama’s desk. This Lucent phone is from the most widely used business phone series worldwide, but is dating back to the mid-nineties. The Cisco 7975G is a VoIP (Voice over IP) telephone, and as such also one of the most widely used.
Both are high-end multiline models, with many functions and large displays, with the Cisco one even having a full colour touchscreen. This phone is also “cool”, not because of having the military grade specifications or the exclusiveness like the IST-2, but because the phone (and its ringtone in particular) became an almost iconic item from the highly popular tv-series 24:
A Cisco 7970 IP Phone used in the CTU operations center in the tv-series 24
(screen cap by www.24tv.de)
This series, which was broadcasted between 2001 and 2010, shaped people’s imagination of the presidency and was in many ways a forerunner of reality. For example there was a popular black president (David Palmer) years before Obama was elected, and much of the fancy communications equipment from the series, like video teleconferencing, was implemented in the real White House Situation Room in 2007. And now the real president also has the same cool Cisco phone as the heroes used in the tv-series.
So, as we have seen, Obama didn’t really tell the truth. The story he told the fundraisers was true during the beginning of the Bush administration, but not during his. Obama actually has some quite cool phones at his disposal, but maybe the only thing is that he just doesn’t realize that.”
“Emirates chief Tim Clark reveals suspicions over true fate of missing flight MH370
2 MONTHS AGO OCTOBER 10, 2014 6:26PM
TIM Clark is no MH370 conspiracy theory crackpot.
As the recently knighted Emirates president and CEO told Aviation Week in July: “Something is not right here and we need to get to the bottom of it.”
Now, seven months after the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 vanished en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, Sir Tim has cast doubt on the official version of events.
In an extraordinary interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, he challenges theAustralian Transport Safety Bureau’s conclusion this week that MH370 flew south over the Indian Ocean on autopilot for five hours until it ran out of fuel and fell out of the sky, forcing 239 passengers into a watery grave.
Instead, Sir Tim believes it is far more likely that “MH370 was under control, probably until the very end”, questions the veracity of the “so-called electronic satellite ‘handshake'” used by analysts to pinpoint the probable crash site and insists the mysterious cargo in the hold (removed from the manifest by Malaysian authorities) is a crucial clue to the puzzle.
That an aircraft the size of MH370 can simply disappear without a trace, “not even a seat cushion” was downright “suspicious”, he said.
The executive has vowed that he will not rest until the truth is known, declaring: “I will continue to ask questions and make a nuisance of myself, even as others would like to bury it.”
And as the head of the largest operator of the Boeing 777 in the world (Emirates has a fleet of 127), “I need to know how anybody could interdict our systems”.
Investigators have said the plane’s tracking systems were deliberately disabled by somebody with extensive aviation knowledge in order to take it off radar.
Here are the highlights from the controversial Der Spiegel interview:
What do you think happened?
Clark: My own view is that probably control was taken of that airplane. It’s anybody’s guess who did what. We need to know who was on the plane in the detail that obviously some people do know. We need to know what was in the hold of the aircraft. And we need to continue to press all those who were involved in the analysis of what happened for more information. I do not subscribe to the view that the Boeing 777, which is one of the most advanced in the world and has the most advanced communication platforms, needs to be improved with the introduction of some kind of additional tracking system. MH 370 should never have been allowed to enter a non-trackable situation.
What do you mean by that?
Clark: The transponders are under the control of the flight deck. These are tracking devices, aircraft identifiers that work in the secondary radar regime. If you turn off that transponder in a secondary radar regime, that particular airplane disappears from the radar screen. That should never be allowed to happen. Irrespective of when the pilot decides to disable the transponder, the aircraft should be able to be tracked.
What about other monitoring methods?
Clark: The other means of constantly monitoring the progress of an aircraft is ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System). It is designed primarily for companies to monitor what its planes are doing. We use it to monitor aircraft systems and engine performance. At Emirates, we track every single aircraft from the ground, every component and engine of the aircraft at any point on the planet. Very often, we are able to track systemic faults before the pilots do.
How might it have been possible to disable that tracking system?
Clark: Disabling it is no simple thing and our pilots are not trained to do so. But on flight MH 370, this thing was somehow disabled, to the degree that the ground tracking capability was eliminated. We must find systems to allow ACARS to continue uninterrupted, irrespective of who is controlling the aircraft. If you have that, with the satellite constellations that we have today even in remote ocean regions, we still have monitoring capability. So you don’t have to introduce additional tracking systems.
What, then, are you proposing?
Clark: My recommendation to aircraft manufacturers that they find a way to make it impossible to disable ACARS from the flight deck. And the transponder as well. I’m still struggling to come up with a reason why a pilot should be able to put the transponder into standby or to switch it off. MH 370 was, in my opinion, under control, probably until the very end.
If that is the case, then why would the pilots spend five hours heading straight towards Antarctica?
Clark: If they did! I am saying that all the “facts” of this particular incident must be challenged and examined with full transparency. We are nowhere near that. There is plenty of information out there, which we need to be far more forthright, transparent and candid about. Every single second of that flight needs to be examined up until it, theoretically, ended up in the Indian Ocean — for which they still haven’t found a trace, not even a seat cushion.
Does that surprise you? The possible crash area west of Australia is vast and the search there only began following considerable delays.
Clark: Our experience tells us that in water incidents, where the aircraft has gone down, there is always something. We have not seen a single thing that suggests categorically that this aircraft is where they say it is, apart from this so-called electronic satellite “handshake,” which I question as well.
At what point on the presumed flight path of MH370 do your doubts begin?
Clark: There hasn’t been one overwater incident in the history of civil aviation — apart from Amelia Earhart in 1939 — that has not been at least five or 10 per cent trackable. But MH 370 has simply disappeared. For me, that raises a degree of suspicion. I’m totally dissatisfied with what has been coming out of all of this.
What can be done to improve the investigation’s transparency?
Clark: I’m not in a position to do it; I’m essentially an airline manager. But I will continue to ask questions and make a nuisance of myself, even as others would like to bury it. We have an obligation to the passengers and crew of MH 370 and their families. We have an obligation to not sweep this under the carpet, but to sort it out and do better than we have done.
MH 370 remains one of the great aviation mysteries. Personally, I have the concern that we will treat it as such and move on. At the most, it might then make an appearance on National Geographic as one of aviation’s great mysteries. We mustn’t allow this to happen. We must know what caused that airplane to disappear.”
Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971; Forensic Economist; 30 year airline and 22 year military pilot; 23,000 hours of safety; Tel: 715 307 8222
David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891 Forensic Economist; former leader of oil-well blow-out teams; now sponsors Grand Juries in CSI Crime and Safety Investigation