Stewart is editor at BigEye.com and NewsWatch.org

Stewart grew up on his family's farm located in NE Ohio's Summit County. In the middle of his last high-school year he asked his parents to give their permission for him to enroll, as a 17 year-old minor, in the US Naval Air Reserves "weekend warrior" O-2 training program at the Akron, Ohio Naval Air Station.

He graduated near the top of Hudson Township's 1951 class of forty-seven students. After spending part of that summer on active training duty, he commuted from home to Kent State University and to NAS Akron. The following summer his Navy Squadron flew an east coast logistical air wing based at Norfolk, VA Naval Air Station. He has fond memories of flying at 17 - 20 years of age in these Navy propeller-driven airplanes: PBY, SNJ, SNB, TBM, and R4D.

The Navy enabled him to transfer to Ohio State University and occupied his time again throughout the following summer. By December of 1955, at which time he earned his Bachelor of Science degree, the war in Korea had ended. More importantly for him, education and developing personal convictions precluded him from pursuing a military career.

He went to work within a few days of graduation, with a "Q" Security Clearance from the Atomic Energy Commission, in a laboratory at Battelle Memorial Institute, within walking distance of the college. An avid reader, by 1960 he no longer considered an academic or military career, nor a lifetime spent working in the confines of a laboratory. He took a job in Ohio with Lever Brothers Company, a large consumer products marketing firm that offered a two-year in-field sales-training program. After the two years he was promoted and transferred to New York City where he eventually participated in the introduction of new products.

He resigned from Lever after six years to triple his income, switching from marketing consumer products to industrial sales. By 1968 he had become one of the nation's top producing truck-body salesmen, selling to major truck-rental companies. After learning the techniques of successful distributor marketing, he moved on to become regional sales manager of a company for a couple of years and then the general sales manager of a division of a publicly traded company. He drove the business into a profitable position within his first full quarter's accounting period.

In 1976 he decided to go into business for himself and to return to his mid-western roots. In the course of a year he built an early Century-21 real estate franchise into the SE Ohio region's leading office in all areas: recruiting, listings, sales, and profit. Bored with that business, he began to study the way that personal financial products were marketed, especially "savings-type" or "money-back" life-insurance. These were financial contracts that he could never fully comprehend.

After sending away for The Consumers Union Guide to Life Insurance and reading it carefully, it became obvious to him that accurate information was needed from other than the industry's trained salesmen and their clever General Agents.

He then studied several books on the subject, including Norman F. Dacey's What's Wrong with Your Life Insurance, G. Scott Reynolds' The Mortality Merchants, the classic chapter #13 on life-insurance in Venita Van Caspel's Money Dynamics, and Randal A. Hendricks definitive study, "A Legal Analysis of the Sale of Life Insurance", [The Houston Law Review 810 (1969)].

He decided to recruit and train a marketing organization that would accurately inform consumers, enabling them to make financial decisions in the interest of their families rather than in those of already financially bloated life-insurance companies.

He met and joined forces with a couple of older highly successful and experienced sales executives, the men who introduced the marketing of mutual funds to the American public. Together, over the next several years, he worked with the progressive insurance companies for which they designed products his own company marketed.

In 1980 he wrote and self-published Financial Recovery. Advertised in full-page ads in "Life Insurance Selling" magazine, where it received a favorable review, thousands of copies were bought by individual agents and agencies across America where it helped to create substantial industry changes.

From 1980 to 1985 he built, owned, and managed a company that became one of the top volume diversified brokerage agencies in America, marketing selected financial products nationally, including tax-deferred single-premium annuities before the tax-law was changed from FIFO to LIFO effective Aug. 14, 1982, and selling attractive unregistered tax-sheltered investments before the IRS eliminated them with TEFRA. Before the personal computer age, he struggled to learn how to program the TI-59 in order to provide responsible agents throughout the country a means of calculating and presenting replicable and accountable financial product analyses for their clients at the point of sale.

He made the stupid mistake by entering politics. A couple of friends and Stewart picked a slate of state-wide candidates after helping the new Libertarian Party gain Ohio ballot access. He ran for the Ohio Senate, campaigning on rejection of the state income tax, repeal of the federal income tax, and audit of the Federal Reserve System. He put a sign on the back of his motorcycle's seat that read, "Stop the Federal Income Tax". It got a lot of approving honks. In retrospect, he realizes how politically naive he was at the time. He did relatively well at the polls but unexpectedly generated personally destructive and formidable enemies.

His brilliant younger brother Bob, a PhD geologist living in Florida, had for years been encouraging him to move south. In January 1986, during a particularly cold Ohio winter, he relocated to Sarasota, Florida, a community which he loves today as much as he did the first day he found it. He hopes to live peacefully there to age 100 among interesting neighbors. He is best contacted as Stewart in www.emailclub.com


View Latest Posts >>>

The Hoax – A Fable For Our Times

 

by Stewart Ogilby

 

Let’s say that I have it in my heart to make myself some easy, but very illegal, money. If one is to take the risk involved in breaking the law it should be for a worthwhile amount. For the sake of argument, my aim is to acquire a cool $2 million in cash. I begin to carefully make plans, estimating the pay-off date roughly a decade in the future. The plan will cost me more than $300 thousand, but that seems to be a reasonable investment.

For this plan to work, I need what I will call an “agent” because her role will be similar to that of a trained agent working for a sophisticated state intelligence agency. I will put her on my payroll immediately. I will continue her pay after I collect the big bucks because she may be of help to me in the future. Who knows what else a bright guy like me might think of doing?

Good agents are hard to find, but money talks. I find an ambitious young woman and offer her a position working for me with the stipulation that she never reveal either her employer or her job description. Her real name happens to be Susan. Sue was looking at a lifetime secure job with regular pay and a bit of excitement. I even toss in some benefits, including a couple million dollars of term life-insurance. Are you starting to get the picture? Guess who the life-insurance beneficiary will be.

Here are some steps I take to capture my big bucks –

I assign Sue an alias, preferably one that has a bit of internal ambiguity. Sue becomes “Kim Strongman Jones”.

I marry the woman, after putting together some history for her. This is no problem because I have ten years to work with. Starting with a costly but high-quality phony birth certificate, “Kim” gets a Social Security number and a state driver’s license along with other assorted documents.

Kim attends a local community college, graduating in two years with an Associate Degree before our marriage.

I submit paid obituaries, a few years apart, for each of Kim’s phony parents, George and Alice Jones, in a newspaper of a distant city. Of course, Kim Strongman is mentioned as their survivor. On the internet I post some genealogy for George Jones, Alice Jones, and Kim Strongman Jones at Ancestry.com and Rootsweb.com as well as add her name to a few other sites.

You have the picture. I have ten years in which to build a paper trail for Kim, who happens to be my paid spook-like agent. Now comes the hard part. Of course, what I would like to do is to fake an airliner crash after adding Kim to a bogus passenger list. The problem is that I don’t happen to have that sort of clout.

Instead, I buy a 28-foot steel-hulled sailboat. My wife, Kim, and I join a local sailing club and make many friends there. We sail together some of the time. Frequently both she and I sail alone. We often sail many miles from shore, leaving shortly after daybreak and returning to our club’s dock at twilight. We make certain that our marine radio is operating, both for weather reports and for accessing the emergency channel.

We also have a hand-held two-way radio at home with a marine band. We pick a day when the weather is problematical. Kim waves to friends as she sails off. In late afternoon the Coast Guard receives a frantic SOS from Kim. Her boat is taking on water, sinking faster than her electric bilge pump can discharge the water. She thinks that the sea-cock to the raw-water-cooled auxiliary diesel engine has cracked or that the packing in the steering has failed. Regardless, she is putting on a life jacket; She usually carries a hand-held GPS but today she left it in her locker at the club by mistake. That is true, because that is where it is later found. However, unlike the GPS, Kim is not found before nightfall and, in fact, is never found. Sharks? Members of the sailing club have a memorial service and vote to name their proposed new clubhouse after her.

What really happened is that “Kim” and I met at an isolated area of the shore just a few miles from where she set sail. We towed a two-man kyack behind our sailboat out to deep water, sank the sailboat, and paddled to shore. Taking care to avoid witnesses, we drove to the airport. Late in the day Kim called in her SOS using the hand-held radio before boarding an airliner for France using her real name and passport. Sue is alive and well and ready for an assignment abroad once I have another job for her. She is professional and reliable. As a grieving widower, I post some stuff about her on the internet but take care to alter photos of her, posting the sort that might make someone who never met her think that she never really existed. The last thing I want is for someone to recognize the face of the deceased victim of a tragic sailing accident.

Epilogue
The above fictional narrative represents only one of several methods logically possible for creating a fake identity and then killing it off. The reality of the matter is that it is very difficult to obtain life-insurance benefits without a body. The companies have excellent investigators. This little game would probably land me in jail. However, in the absence of a professional investigation some people might get away with – can we say murder?

bowling green ky
marshall high school
huntington learning center
spinal muscular atrophy
legalization of cannabis

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Related Posts:



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on February 25, 2012, With 3261 Reads Filed under 9/11. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

24 Responses to "The Hoax – A Fable For Our Times"

  1. Stewart Ogilby  March 8, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    JCD – You have some strong points and they remind me of where I was only 6 months ago. The problem lies in seeing and hearing stuff presented by the media. They did it with the now exposed “moon trips” and they did it with 911. The “plane” you refer to was a digital animation. Once that is understood, there are no other problems: passengers, hijackers, stand-down, NORAD tapes, etc. The knee-jerk rebuttal becomes, “what about the hundreds of witnesses”. Remember, that too was media presented. I am delighted that you will be spending time reviewing Shack’s web sites. Don’t miss the area that handles the “airliner witnesses” nonsense – see http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_4.htm

  2. JCD  March 7, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Stewart,

    I’m familiar with Simon Shack’s basic arguments and positions, but I haven’t looked at his website in-depth yet. I will do that and get back to you with a more thorough analysis. My argument above is coming from a line of thinking pertaining to tactics, because from a tactical standpoint, faking all the videos in New York City just seems way too risky and complicated for the conspirators to even consider, given the fact that they had the airliner remote control specialist Dov Zakheim at their disposal. This plan would only have to involve six people at the most to set up the two remote control airplanes (flight 11 and flight 175), whereas faking all the videos in New York City would have required all of the more than two dozen photographers and newscasters (everyone in that list from the September Clues link you posted) to be briefed of the ENTIRE false flag attack plan in advance, because they would be tasked with preparing the faked videos in advance of the attack. This is a dumb strategy because it would be very complicated to coordinate and a much higher number of people would have to be told the secretive attack plans.

    If you want to see a smoking gun video, then go to Youtube and watch the video of Jane Standley’s BBC news report where she announces the collapse of WTC Building 7 twenty minutes BEFORE it actually happened! In fact, you can clearly see WTC Building 7 is still standing in the window behind her while she is reporting that it has collapsed! So somebody needs to interview her and the news crew from that day to find out exactly who fed them the advanced information that WTC Building 7 was going to collapse and bingo, that will lead you directly to the real perpetrators of 9/11.

    While I’m at it now, I’ll debunk one other detail promoted by Simon Shack and also Jim Fetzer, and that is the argument that a 767 airliner going over 500 mph wouldn’t be able to penetrate the outer perimeter of the WTC Towers and that it would just splatter against the side of the building. The outer perimeter of the WTC buildings was composed of steel box columns that were one foot thick and then there was open office space on the other side of that. You seriously believe that one foot steel box columns are going to stop a 200 ton airliner traveling 500 mph? If the sides of the WTC buildings were composed of a giant reinforced concrete wall 100 feet by 100 feet and 10 feet thick, that might be able to stop an airliner and make it splatter against the side of the building, but one foot steel box columns? Get real.

    Also, flight 175 was able to travel at over 500 mph at low altitude sea level because it was NOT a regular commercial airliner, it was probably a custom made stronger faster remote controlled military aircraft DISGUISED as a regular commercial airliner with a United Airlines pain job.

  3. Stewart Ogilby  March 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    JCD – Posting videos does not make either you or Duff shills. Your purporting to have analyzed the so-called amateur videos which keep springing up online even years after 9/11 and failure to document your work is what concerns me. I would be most interested in your rebuttal of Shack’s analysis of these videos, the photographers of which he has listed, at http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_2.htm – it is an excellent place to start when looking at these amazing pieces of photography. Please do so.

  4. JCD  March 6, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    Also, if Stewart is going to call me a shill, then he is also going to have to call Gordon Duff a shill, because 80% of the videos I listed in my post up above, Gordon Duff has included these same videos in many of his own articles on this site over the past few years.

  5. JCD  March 6, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Yeah Derek, they shouldn’t be blocking me because I have some very important insight to contribute to this discussion. By promoting the “no planes in New York” idea, they’re letting Dov Zakheim off the hook, when the evidence implicating him and several other Israelis is as clear as day. The main point I wanted to make is that faking the airplanes in New York City is a really dumb strategy because it drastically over-complicates the false flag operation. Think about it, which would be easier? Having to employ a team of computer graphics experts to fake dozens of videos (with the added risk of there also being dozens of legit videos released) or just having Dov Zakheim rig up one Boeing 767 plane with his remote control technology, give it a United Airlines paint job and then fly it into the South Tower.

    • Chris  March 6, 2012 at 5:38 pm

      “By promoting the “no planes in New York” idea, they’re letting Dov Zakheim off the hook, when the evidence implicating him and several other Israelis is as clear as day.”

      Bingo! I could not agree more.

  6. JCD  March 6, 2012 at 12:30 am

    What’s the deal? I just posted two comments and they haven’t appeared.

  7. Stewart Ogilby  March 5, 2012 at 9:32 am

    JCD – Why didn’t they do a more accountable job on putting together airliner “passenger lists”? Why didn’t they doctor the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to show those phony flights as having existed that day? Why did they arrange for the New York Times and other papers to publish names of Arab hijackers that they clearly realized would be located alive and well, and why do they continue to use those names? Why did they release obviously fraudulent Bin Laden videos? Why did they pull off the anthrax hoax right after 911? Why did they morph and photoshop victim photos? Why didn’t they just implode the NYC buildings, asbestos and all, without all that hoopla? There are many more “whys” that could be listed. The answer: Ask them. Your asking a “why” question serves to avoid your having to be accountable for unsupportable allegations. It is a non-directive response. Now let’s get back to the matter at hand. I wrote: “Kindly justify your bizarre conclusions pertaining to amateur NYC videos with support documentation.” Let us all know where to examine it. Thank you, in advance, for your prompt attention to this matter.

    • JCD  March 6, 2012 at 12:19 am

      Stewart, if you want to see the myriad of amateur videos taken of flight 175’s impact into the South Tower, they’re scattered all over Youtube/websites and there are dozens of them. I agree with you about the Arab hijackers being found alive and well, the FBI and the conspirators were obviously very sloppy with some details of the 9/11 false flag attack. I also agree that the Bin Laden videos were fraudulent, and that several photos might have been doctored or altered with Photoshop after the attacks.

      But faking the airplanes in New York City is a very dumb strategy because it drastically over-complicates the false flag operation. Think about it. Which would be easier? Having to employ a team of computer graphics experts to fake dozens of videos (with the added risk of there also being dozens of legit videos released, taken by people with camcorders in New York showing no plane impact) or just having Dov Zakheim rig up one Boeing 767 plane with his remote control technology, give it a United Airlines paint job and then fly it into the South Tower. Presto, no need to employ several computer experts (who would have to be told the entire plan of the false flag operation) and no need to worry about having to fake dozens of complicated CGI amateur videos and news footage. Everything I’ve talked about above is purely common sense, because if they over-complicate the operation with dumb ideas, then they’re just asking for it to fail.

      I’ve talked about this before in the comments section here at Veterans Today. It would have been much too difficult to fake that many videos, match them all up from different angles, and put everything together including all the amateur videos that captured the second plane impact. What conspirator would presume that everyone with a video camera in New York City wouldn’t be pointing it at WTC 1 and 2 once the first plane impact happened? To suggest that video fakery was used is such pure nonsense. Why would they devise such a dumb strategy? In a city of 8 million people, there would easily be a hundred videos of a second explosion with no plane whatsoever appear online (if this BS about no planes were true), because people who trained cameras on the first burning building would be compelled to put the second explosion online should it mysteriously not involve a plane as the “video fakery media” proclaimed. Something else to keep in mind is the computer graphics CGI technology back in 2001 wasn’t even nearly as advanced and accessible as it is today.

      One more thing Stewart, if you’re going to call me a shill, then you’re also going to have to call Gordon Duff a shill, because about 80 % of the videos I listed in my post above, Gordon Duff has included these same videos in several of his own articles on this site over the past few years.

  8. Stewart Ogilby  March 4, 2012 at 9:56 am

    JCD – I am going to do something that is far from my normal cordial response. I am accusing you of being both a fraud and a shill. Kindly justify your bizaare conclusions pertaining to “amateur” NYC videos with support documentation. I suggest that you view real analysis of this patent fraud. See http://www.septemberclues.info/faq_2.htm before you attempt to put your foot into your mouth. When you prove me to be wrong, I will gladly submit to you my sincere personal apology.

    • JCD  March 5, 2012 at 3:30 am

      Stewart, here is why the “no planes in New York” idea doesn’t make any sense. If they truly did have the resources and the ability to fake dozens of videos of flight 175 crashing into the South Tower that were taken by handheld camcorders (these are the amateur videos) AND news cameras in New York City on 9/11, then why didn’t they spend a little extra effort to fake a few convincing videos of a CGI plane flying into the Pentagon and WTC Building 7 to show off to the world?

  9. Chris  March 3, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    Very good points. Why not fake a Pentagon video? Why not fake a WTC7 video? And I also feel that the “no planes at WTC” meme lets Dov Zakheim, with his strong ties to Israel and his SPC “flight termination system”, off the hook.

    I am open to the possibility that videos were messed with after the fact to muddy the waters, or even the possibility that video was messed with live to hide plane swaps(check the 9/11 fllight paths over military bases).

    • JCD  March 5, 2012 at 3:10 am

      Exactly Chris, I agree the “no plane in New York” meme does let Dov Zakheim off the hook, because the evidence in the videos of flight 175 crashing into the South Tower clearly shows the SPC flight termination system object on the belly of flight 175. I think the planes in New York were actually beefed up remote controlled military aircraft disguised as commercial aircraft, with a United Airlines paint job. That is why the planes were able to execute those difficult maneuvers at very high speeds. But the conspirators messed up one major detail on flight 175 which completely gave them away, the cylindrical object on the underbelly of flight 175 that you can see in all of the many videos and photographs. This object looks very similar to Dov Zakheim’s remote control Flight Termination System found on military aircraft. Those photographs and videos of the cylindrical object on the underbelly of flight 175 are MAJOR evidence implicating Dov Zakheim’s System Planning Corporation!

    • Derek X  March 5, 2012 at 11:19 am

      Very interesting, JCD, and you are also making people nervous. Very interesting.

    • Derek X  March 5, 2012 at 3:02 pm

      I don’t know about all the “the jews, the jews” stuff that goes on all the time, but were there strange doodads hanging from the plane?

  10. Stewart Ogilby  March 3, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    JCD – Those of us who have been looking into the 911 hoax have all watched these videos. If listing them in your comment somehow qualifies you as a particularly astute “researcher”, then count me in. It ought to be obvious that my own attention is now directed toward the media’s victimology narratives. You purport to be an authority on the analysis of videos allegedly taken in New York by amateurs and ask us to accept your viewpoint. Kindly refer me to the monograph or study of videos, including their provenance, performed by you or your staff, leading to such conclusions. Thank you for your comment.

  11. Stewart Ogilby  February 29, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    Trowbridge – It does seem that seeing on TV is believing both here and in Sweden. The criteria for special effects is, after all, to “look like the real thing”. You might spend a little time at http://septemberclues.info – if you approach it with a presumption that it has to be preposterous, as do most viewers, that is what you will conclude. It is not beyond the talents of Hollywood and our media moguls to have made and broadcasted a 911 film, including plane impact, buildings disintegrating, witnesses, street scenes, and rubble pile. Urban renewal has never before been so exciting, profitable, and politically expedient. The site I have referred you to has done, in my view, a fine job of analyzing so-called “amateur videos”. Be sure to check it out. Your calling me “some kind of a beast” is sufficient to my calling a halt to further rational discussion with you, post what you will.

  12. Stewart Ogilby  February 29, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Trowbridge – Wow! You saw the same “real time” movie on CNN that was shown on the other channels too? Maybe it came from Hollywood, scripted by a mysterious “David Angell” when not working on “Cheers” and who, ironically, ended up as a victim. Hoist on his on petard! Who am I to question authoritative stuff released to TV and newspapers by government, especially those heart-breaking cell-phone calls? I must really be a beast not to be overcome by all the touching memorials, internet, public, and the reflecting pools, walls, benches, etc. Are you playfully acting as “devil’s advocate”?

  13. Stewart Ogilby  February 29, 2012 at 7:25 am

    Trowbridge – With all respect to you, one needs be cautions in using terms such as “disinfo agent”, “troll”, and, in your case, “resident disinformers” when in disagreement. This is especially true in the case where you depend upon the veracity of MLM, in this case a BBC article that appears to be a bread and butter type government press-release. I am not going to make any outlandish claim or inference unless I can back it up solidly. Stay tuned.

  14. Stewart Ogilby  February 28, 2012 at 9:10 am

    pj – You will have to move rather quickly to gather obituary-type memorial information of 911 victims. These imaginary and maudlin pages are being rapidly removed from the web, and for good reason. A tip for trying to “flesh out” your selected victim: Do not rely on internet data for public records documentation. Visit the county courthouse where you will find good people willing to help you. Don’t try to persuade others after your apotheosis. They cannot wrap their minds around this. Huge lies go unexamined, sometimes forever.

  15. Stewart Ogilby  February 27, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    pj – Precisely! Incidently, perhaps one or more 9/11 victims lived somewhere near you. If so, take a bit of time on the internet memorial pages to learn some details of the life that was tragically cut short. Public records will disclose last known address and much more if you know how to look for it. Certainly, after all these years friends and family will share their loving memories. Let me know what you discover, please.

  16. pj  February 27, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    This would explain the fraudulent cell phone calls from the hijacked planes (“fraudulent” in the sense that they could not have happened using 2001 technology.)
    I don’t know, I get the hidden meaning here-some of the passengers may have been sock puppets created well in advance for insurance collection purposes. Or am I way off? If “any idiot” could get as far using conventional methods, how many rock solid “people” could be created by intelligence services (forging passports, etc.)?

  17. Stewart Ogilby  February 26, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Yes, and I see your point. I hope that you understand mine. The FBI has been recruiting college coeds for the past several years along with young men. The security of a government job is attractive, especially in today’s environment. They undergo indoctrination and training and are then dropped back into civil life. What has happened to our nation is chilling. A closed society is not policed by uniformed persons only.

  18. Excalibur  February 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Stewart – have you ever employed female staff ……?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network