Google, Bing and Operation Mockingbird

Google, Bing and Operation Mockingbird

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Tuesday, 10th June, 2014

In January 2005, I wrote an article entitled Operation Mockingbird. At that time very little was known about this highly secret Central Intelligence Agency media operation that dated back to 1948 when Frank Wisner was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects. Soon afterwards it was renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). This became the espionage and counter-intelligence branch of the CIA. Wisner was told to create an organization that concentrated on "propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."

Later that year Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic American media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham, the publisher of the Washington Post, to run the project within the industry. Graham himself recruited others who had worked for military intelligence during the war. This included James Truitt, Russell Wiggins, Phil Geyelin, John Hayes and Alan Barth. Others like Stewart Alsop, Joseph Alsop and James Reston, were recruited from within the Georgetown Set. According to Deborah Davis, the author of Katharine the Great (1979): "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."

One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), C. D. Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), Walter Winchell (New York Daily Mirror), Drew Pearson, Walter Lippmann, William Allen White, Edgar Ansel Mowrer (Chicago Daily News), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Whitelaw Reid (New York Herald Tribune), Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles L. Bartlett (Chattanooga Times). According to Nina Burleigh, the author of A Very Private Woman, (1998) these journalists sometimes wrote articles that were commissioned by Frank Wisner. The CIA also provided them with classified information to help them with their work.

Evidence for Operation Mockingbird first came from many different sources. Thomas Braden, head of the of the CIA's International Organizations Division (IOD), played an important role in Operation Mockingbird. In June, 1975, Braden gave an interview to the Granada Television program, World in Action: The Rise and Fall of the CIA. "If the director of CIA wanted to extend a present, say, to someone in Europe - a Labour leader - suppose he just thought, This man can use fifty thousand dollars, he's working well and doing a good job - he could hand it to him and never have to account to anybody... There was simply no limit to the money it could spend and no limit to the people it could hire and no limit to the activities it could decide were necessary to conduct the war - the secret war.... It was a multinational. Maybe it was one of the first. Journalists were a target, labor unions a particular target - that was one of the activities in which the communists spent the most money." In another interview Braden confessed that the activities of the CIA had to be kept secret from Congress. As he pointed out in the article: "In the early 1950s, when the cold war was really hot, the idea that Congress would have approved many of our projects was about as likely as the John Birch Society's approving Medicare."

Further details of Operation Mockingbird was revealed as a result of the Frank Church investigations (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities). According to the Congress report published in 1976: "The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets." Church argued that the cost of misinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265 million a year.

Church showed that it was CIA policy to use clandestine handling of journalists and authors to get information published initially in the foreign media in order to get it disseminated in the United States. Church quotes from one document written by the Chief of the Covert Action Staff on how this process worked (page 193). For example, he writes: “Get books published or distributed abroad without revealing any U.S. influence, by covertly subsidizing foreign publicans or booksellers.” Later in the document he writes: “Get books published for operational reasons, regardless of commercial viability”. Church goes onto report that “over a thousand books were produced, subsidized or sponsored by the CIA before the end of 1967”. All these books eventually found their way into the American market-place. Either in their original form (Church gives the example of the Penkovskiy Papers) or repackaged as articles for American newspapers and magazines.

In another document published in 1961 the Chief of the Agency’s propaganda unit wrote: “The advantage of our direct contact with the author is that we can acquaint him in great detail with our intentions; that we can provide him with whatever material we want him to include and that we can check the manuscript at every stage… (the Agency) must make sure the actual manuscript will correspond with our operational and propagandistic intention.” Church quotes Thomas H. Karamessines as saying: “If you plant an article in some paper overseas, and it is a hard-hitting article, or a revelation, there is no way of guaranteeing that it is not going to be picked up and published by the Associated Press in this country” (page 198).

By analyzing CIA documents Church was able to identify over 50 U.S. journalists who were employed directly by the Agency. He was aware that there were a lot more who enjoyed a very close relationship with the CIA who were “being paid regularly for their services, to those who receive only occasional gifts and reimbursements from the CIA” (page 195). Church pointed out that this was probably only the tip of the iceberg because the CIA refused to “provide the names of its media agents or the names of media organizations with which they are connected”. Church was also aware that most of these payments were not documented. This was the main point of the Otis Pike Report. If these payments were not documented and accounted for, there must be a strong possibility of financial corruption taking place. This includes the large commercial contracts that the CIA was responsible for distributing. Pike’s report actually highlighted in 1976 what eventually emerged in the 1980s via the activities of CIA operatives such as Edwin Wilson, Thomas Clines, Ted Shackley, Raphael Quintero, Richard Secord and Felix Rodriguez.

Carl Bernstein, who had worked with Bob Woodward in the investigation of Watergate, provided further information about Operation Mockingbird in an article in The Rolling Stone in October, 1977. Bernstein claimed that over a 25 year period over 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA: "Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad."

I published my article on Operation Mockingbird on the website in January 2005. I also posted my discoveries on the Education Forum. I then carried out a search for "Operation Mockingbird" at Google. First in the ranking was the Wikipedia entry. On 6th April, 2005, it said: “Operation Mockingbird is the name of a CIA project that may or may not have existed. It has been mentioned in several books and web sites, but its existence has not yet been determined. Some believe the operation is merely an urban legend or a conspiracy theory.” Clearly, the person who wrote this entry knew nothing about CIA operations. I therefore decided to edit the page. I therefore decided to write the entry for Operation Mockingbird on Wikipedia. However, as soon as I did this, it was deleted and the original entry was put back.

My own page on Operation Mockingbird appeared in search-engines such as AltaVista, Yahoo and AlltheWeb. However, Google did not appear to have it in its database. This was surprising as at the time I was doing very well at Google from my other pages. In the past I have worked for national newspapers and I used my contacts to make inquiries about Google's relationship with the CIA.

I posted information on the Education Forum and had letters published in the national press about the failings of Wikipedia. Eventually I was contacted by a representative of Wikipedia and I was told that if I gave full page references for my history of this CIA operation they would allow it to stand.

On 14th June, 2005, I was able to announce that my page on Operation Mockingbird had been restored to the Google database. (It now appeared at 3rd place in the ranking). So also was my page on Frank Wisner, the man who established Mockingbird. Another person blocked, Mary Pinchot Meyer, was also back in.

Recently, I had reason to do a search for "Operation Mockingbird". At Bing it came 2nd to Wikipedia. This was to be expected as it is the most detailed page on the web on the subject. In 7th place was the original debate we had about it on the Education Forum. However, I got quite a surprise, when I did the same thing at Google. It was on the third page in 22nd place. (The Education Forum was in 23rd place). Why has Google downgraded this page? I recently had an email from Bing stating: "For the second year, in blind tests, using the UK's most popular web searches, more people prefer Bing results than Google!" I am not surprised, it will be my default search-engine in future.

The current Wikipedia entry is also disturbing. Although it still contains some of the material that I produced, it has removed all reference to my website. Another important change is the removal of most of the journalists I named who were working for America 's leading media organisations. It would seem that Operation Mockingbird is still in existence and is having an impact on online information.

No one knows the name and academic credentials of the person who did the final edit. Google gives Wikipedia a domain authority of 100 (that is why it always appears at the top of the rankings). However, that is not true of teachers in schools and universities who refuse to accept references from Wikipedia as we have no idea who has written the material.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion and its Aftermath, April 1961–October 1962

A left-wing revolution in Cuba had ended in 1959 with the ouster of President Fulgencio Batista and the establishment of a new government under Premier Fidel Castro. The Castro regime quickly severed the country’s formerly strong ties with the United States by expropriating U.S. economic assets in Cuba and developing close links with the Soviet Union.

These developments proved a source of grave concern to the United States given Cuba’s geographical proximity to the United States and brought Cuba into play as a new and significant factor in the Cold War. In March 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower directed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to develop a plan for the invasion of Cuba and overthrow of the Castro regime. The CIA organized an operation in which it trained and funded a force of exiled counter-revolutionary Cubans serving as the armed wing of the Democratic Revolutionary Front, known as Brigade 2506.

Following his election in November 1960, President John F. Kennedy learned of the invasion plan, concluded that Fidel Castro was a Soviet client posing a threat to all of Latin America and, after consultations with his advisors, gave his consent for the CIA-planned clandestine invasion of Cuba to proceed. Launched from Guatemala, the attack went wrong almost from the start. Components of Brigade 2506 landed at the Bay of Pigs on April 17, 1961 and were defeated within 2 days by Cuban armed forces under the direct command of Castro.

The failed invasion strengthened the position of Castro’s administration, which proceeded to openly proclaim its intention to adopt socialism and pursue closer ties with the Soviet Union. It also led to a reassessment of Cuba policy by the Kennedy administration. The President established a committee under former Army Chief of Staff General Maxwell Taylor and Attorney General Robert Kennedy to examine the causes of the defeat suffered at the Bay of Pigs.

This examination and policy assessment, initiated in May 1961, led in November of that year to a decision to implement a new covert program in Cuba, with the codename of Operation Mongoose. Oversight for Operation Mongoose was provided by the 5412/2 Special Group, under the auspices of the National Security Council, expanded to include General Taylor and Attorney General Kennedy.

Operation Mongoose was designed to do what the Bay of Pigs invasion failed to do: remove the Communist Castro regime from power in Cuba. Orchestrated by the CIA and Department of Defense under the direction of Edward Lansdale, Operation Mongoose constituted a multiplicity of plans with wide-ranging purpose and scope. Lansdale presented the Project’s six-phase schedule to Attorney General Kennedy on February 20, 1962, and President Kennedy received a briefing on the operation’s components on March 16, 1962. Lansdale outlined the coordinated program of political, psychological, military, sabotage, and intelligence operations, as well as proposed assassination attempts on key political leaders, including Castro. Monthly components of the operation were to be set in place to destabilize the communist regime, including the publication of Anti-Castro propaganda, provision of armaments for militant opposition groups, and establishment of guerilla bases throughout the country, all leading up to preparations for an October 1962 military intervention in Cuba. Some (though not all) of the planned Operation Mongoose actions were deployed during 1962, but the military intervention did not occur, and the Castro regime remained in power.

Fact-checking QAnon conspiracy theories: Did J.P. Morgan sink the Titanic?

When the Titanic sank on April 15, 1912, several well-known millionaires were counted among the 1,503 dead. “Noted Men on the Lost Titanic,” announced a New York Times headline: “Col. Jacob Astor, with His Wife Isidor Straus and Wife, and Benj. Guggenheim Abroad.” Obituaries followed for Astor, the New York builder of hotels and skyscrapers Straus, a banker and owner of Macy’s department store and Guggenheim, a builder of mining machinery.

But one of the world’s richest men had avoided his fate.

J. Pierpont Morgan “had thought earlier in the year to return to America on the ill-fated Titanic,” The Washington Post reported on April 19. “Then Mr. Morgan decided to lengthen his stay abroad.”

Now, 106 years later, the pro-Trump online conspiracy-theory group QAnon has made Morgan the villain of a wildly implausible story. In its sinister tale, Morgan sank the Titanic to assassinate Astor, Straus and Guggenheim, his supposed rival millionaires.

But the story falls apart fast if you spend a little time in historic newspaper databases or a good library. QAnon may have only surfaced nine months ago, but its obsession with the Rothschilds, the Illuminati, the CIA’s supposed Operation Mockingbird, Morgan and the Titanic revives decades, even centuries, of moth-eaten paranoia.

The Titanic and J.P. Morgan

The ship’s sinking still captivates imaginations, as both a genuine tragedy and a near-perfect metaphor for humanity’s hubris. Ever since the luxury liner went down, conspiracy theories have clung to it like barnacles. One elaborate theory says the 46,000-ton vessel was switched with its sister ship, the Olympic, in a convoluted insurance scam, a fake iceberg collision that went horribly wrong.

Compared to other Titanic blarney, the J.P. Morgan theory is relatively new, but QAnon didn’t invent it — it’s been echoing inside Internet rabbit holes for years.

Morgan did indeed have a connection to the Titanic: His International Mercantile Marine company owned the White Star Line, which built and operated the ship. Morgan witnessed the Titanic’s launching in Belfast, on May 31, 1911.

Supposedly, the conspiracists say, Morgan canceled his Titanic trip at the last minute before the ship’s April 10, 1912, departure from Southampton, England. Then Morgan somehow had the ship sunk, killing 1,503 of its 2,224 passengers, to get rid of Astor, Straus and Guggenheim.

How did he do it? The theory is unclear on that, but the plot supposedly involved ensuring the ship had the wrong signal flares. In a sci-fi-horror twist, believers also claim the Titanic’s decks could be electromagnetically sealed to trap passengers. “Some of the ‘facts’ offered up in the retellings of this tale are absolutely hysterical to read, at least to anyone familiar with the historical facts,” wrote maritime historian J. Kent Layton in his 2016 book “Conspiracies at Sea: Titanic and Lusitania.”

Even more sinister is Morgan’s supposed motive for mass murder: The conspiracists falsely claim Astor, Straus, and Guggenheim opposed the creation of the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank. (Alternate versions of the tale don’t blame Morgan, but either the Rothschild banking family or the Jesuits.)

Morgan’s actual reason for not sailing on the Titanic’s maiden voyage is well-documented. According to Jean Strouse’s 1999 biography “Morgan: American Financierand Brad Matsen’s 2008 book “Titanic’s Last Secrets,” Morgan was busy trying to ship his vast art collection in England and France by sea to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. In late March, he hit a setback: a U.S. Customs Office art specialist, sent to London to inspect the shipments, unexpectedly left for the States. Morgan stopped the shipments, asked the art dealer supervising them to meet him in France in mid-April, and sent a telegram to the White Star Line’s president with his regrets: Business would keep him from sailing on the Titanic.

At least one of Morgan’s supposed enemies, Guggenheim, didn’t book his spot on the Titanic until April 8, after Morgan canceled, according to a news account from the time. And despite the sinister insinuation, Astor, Guggenheim and Straus didn’t oppose the creation of the Federal Reserve. A digital search of key U.S. newspapers of the era doesn’t show Astor or Guggenheim taking a position on the Fed. But Straus did. He spoke publicly in favor of the proposal to create a federal reserve, according to two October 1911 stories in the New York Times.

Operation Mockingbird

QAnon posters dismiss press reports they do not like by claiming they are part of “Operation Mockingbird,” supposedly a continuation of a 1950s CIA program to distribute propaganda through the media.

Google, Bing and Operation Mockingbird - History

Since you are comfortable with and agree with the "news" as the entity (Mainstream Media is better known as) you would rather not explore and learn how the CIA and six corporations now control what America gets as news information. You say, "I don't want to know anything about this".

This is a serious issue, because with all American citizens (read voters) not understanding nor being informed about the Issues, how can they - you - make informed decisions? You can't!

Your denial of our history and of the CIA'S power does not deminish facts.

"Operation Mockingbird and the CIA’s History of Media Manipulation"

"UNDERWORLDOperation MockingBird. When the Government was controlling the Media to Sway Your Thoughts"

According to writer Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and oversaw the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed after a 1967 Ramparts (1) magazine article reported that the National Student Association (2) received funding from the CIA. In the 1970s, Congressional investigations and reports also revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups. None of these reports, however, mentions an Operation Mockingbird coordinating or supporting these activities.

I’ve known about the media monopoly since I read Ben Bagdikian’s book of the same name back in 1988.

I don’t believe anything I read in the press without doing some research. Fortunately we have other sources to corroborate or disprove. What I don’t do is disbelieve everything I read in the media en mass

Again, it appears my assertion about your comfort level with the media monopoly is accurate? As is my assertion about the general reporting on the issues? More to the point, your acquiescence with the control exererted by the CIA?

Your post made no mention on any of those Issues - why?

As for your suggestion for me to take a more cynical view of my faith?

What does my faith have to do with anything on this thread?

<< Idon’t believe anything I read in the press without doing some research. Fortunately we have other sources to corroborate or disprove. >>

By "we" are you including all of the rest of the American people? Your answer is very cryptic here. Is that your insinuation? Can you show me that our citizens actually make use of these other sources?

If you can't, then that substantiated my point of view - the CIA controlled media is propagandizing the American people. And you are fine with that.

<< What I don’t do is disbelieve everything I read in the media en mass >>

By we, i mean us. You and me and everyone. No. i can’t speak for what others do.

Show me what you mean by the CIA controlling the news narrative. Oh. you mean like selling the Vietnam war as a fight for democracy and freedom.

“And to cover up covert and often illegal foreign operations, including the 1954 overthrowing of the democratic government of President Arbenz in Guatamala. The operation also helped cover up the overthrowing of the democratic Iranian government in 1953 (Operation Ajax) and helped to control the press during the Bay of Pigs U.S. – Cuba fiasco.”

Yeah. the CIA has a long history of that kind of behavior.

"We Are Witnessing Operation Mockingbird in Real Time as it Shapes the Public Opinion on the Death of President Bush"

The things you won’t hear reported or even considered about the life of President Bush:

He was the grandson of the person responsible for assigning ammunition contracts in ww1.

His father was a Connecticut Senator who’s company was dissolved by congress for trading with the nazis in ww2.

He likely was involved with the CIA and the assassination of President Kennedy (Google JFK II) at a time when the CIA had absorbed the Nazi spy apparatus (Google Operation Paperclip).

He likely was involved with the CIA and the assassination of President Kennedy (Google JFK II) at a time when the CIA had absorbed the Nazi spy apparatus (Google Operation Paperclip).

He was appointed Director of the CIA to squash the Church Commission and testified to congress that propaganda against the citizens of the US by the CIA would continue (Google Church, Commission and Operation Mockingbird).

Ran the Reagan White House and coordinated the CIA smuggling of cocaine into the US to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. Traded arm to Iran requiring presidential pardons for these crimes. (Google Tower Commission Report, Gary Webb, Dark Alliance). Fire bombed portions of Panama cleaning up the drug channels.

Huh? Refusing to address? You don’t know what you’re talking about. I was marching in the streets protesting Reagan and Bush 1’s dirty war. I know all about Bush and his CIA activities.

I spent two weeks in El Salvador in 1992 as part of a delegation with CISPES trying to end that war. And I raised thousands of dollars to help the citizens of El Salvador to attend school and fight death squads. And I marched through the streets of San Salvador with 40,000 Salvadoreños to commemorate the assassination of Archbishop Romero, a proponent of liberation theology and enemy of fascism.

What were you doing, hmm? Whining on the internet? Praying?

And you’re right. msm will not bad mouth dead presidents in the days and weeks following their deaths. Which is exactly why we need to supplement with other news sources.

Preparing for cataract surgery

Before you schedule cataract surgery, your eye doctor will perform a comprehensive eye exam to check the overall health of your eyes and decide if anything will prevent you from having surgery.

The doctor will also perform a refraction test to determine your nearsightedness, farsightedness and/or astigmatism measurements before surgery. Additional measurements of your eyes will be taken to determine the shape of your eye and which type of implantable lens you&aposll need.

Prior to eye surgery, you&aposll be informed about what to expect before, during and after your procedure. This information will help you make an informed decision about moving forward with surgery.

Your eye doctor will ask about any medications and supplements you&aposre taking. Some of these can increase your risk of complications and may need to be discontinued for a little while.

If you have any questions or concerns about cataract surgery, be sure to discuss them with your eye doctor and cataract surgeon before signing the "informed consent" documents that authorize surgery.

Trusted by more than 50 million users globally

"Rablab integrated their business operations and increased productivity with Zoho."

Nicolas Rabouille, Co-founder & Project management

COVID-19 Resources

Relief initiatives and remote working resources to help you weather the storm.

Partner with Zoho

Zoho partners with top notch VARs, MSPs, SIs, consultants and technology partners.

Google, Bing and Operation Mockingbird - History

Over two days in April 1975, as the forces of the North Vietnamese Army were poised to take the South Vietnamese capital of Saigon, members of the U.S. armed forces, its embassy in South Vietnam and its Defense Attaché Office evacuated over 7,000 people using only helicopters.

Although the United States had withdrawn its combat troops in 1973, thousands of Americans remained behind, including those stationed in Saigon at the Defense Attaché Office (DAO) and the U.S. Embassy. By March 1975, North Vietnamese troops were closing in on the capital, having captured several strategic sites including Da Nang, Ban Me Thout and Song Be.[i]

Seeing the writing on the wall, the U.S. began to evacuate its personnel and others, including Vietnamese orphans through Operation Babylift. From April 1 to April 29, 45,000 people, including over 5,000 Americans, were evacuated from the country using a variety of aircraft including commercial and military aircraft.

Things took a turn for the worst, however, beginning on April 27:

North Vietnamese forces were close enough to launch rockets into Saigon. That ended the use of the C-141s for the evacuation . . . [although] C-130s . . . continued to evacuate personnel to the Philippines . . . Conditions in Saigon deteriorated on April 28, when North Vietnamese aircraft bombed Tan Son Nhut and destroyed one C-130. . . . By early morning on April 29, the use of fixed wing aircraft for evacuations ended.

Operation Frequent Wind

To assist with the evacuation, the Navy had moved a large number ships off of the Vung Tau Peninsula in the South China Sea. Several aircraft carriers were among the group, including the Hancock, Enterprise, Coral Sea, Okinawa and Midway.

Navy and Air Force fighters provided air support for the evacuation, which included 71 U.S. helicopters and 20 from Air America.[ii] In addition, a large number of Vietnamese evacuated themselves in boats, helicopters and other aircraft (these latter flown by Vietnamese Air Force personnel). The entire U.S. air operation was controlled through a “USAF C-130, Airborne Command and Control Center” that remained in the sky throughout the evacuation.[iii]

In advance of the operation, the Embassy had prepared and distributed instructions for those civilians who were to be evacuated. These included a coded signal to be broadcast on Saigon and Armed Forces Radio:

It was a bizarre Kafkaesque time because as those helicopters came into the Embassy one could hear wafting in over the walls of that citadel the strains of Bing Crosby’s “I’m Dreaming of a White Christmas.” That was a code . . . It was supposed to summon all Americans to various staging points.

The ground operation, which was to ferry evacuees to lift-off points, primarily the DAO, was soon stymied as terrified Vietnamese who were not eligible for the evacuation tried to leave the country. Many collected at the DAO, as well as the American Embassy, the latter of which was only to be an evacuation point for its embassy staff.

The start of the air operation was also delayed and did not begin until about 2 p.m. at the DAO. Things ran smoothly, however, and the first evacuees were safely unloaded at about 3 p.m. By 9 pm., the last from the DAO were loaded onto helicopters, and by the end of the day, about 5,000 people had been safely cleared from it.

To evacuate as many as possible before the city fell, marines hastily arranged for more landing spaces, including cutting down trees and moving vehicles from the parking lot.

Forced to wait until the evacuation at the DAO was complete, the air lift at the Embassy did not begin until about 10:30 p.m.[iv] Arriving in 10 minute intervals, the helicopters had a difficult task:

Flying at night through ground fire over Saigon and the surrounding area, [the helicopters] had to pick up evacuees from dangerously constricted landing spaces at the embassy, [including] one atop the building itself.

As the North Vietnamese were closing in, the President of the United States made a tough call:

At 0345, 30 April, President Ford ordered Ambassador Martin to stop the evacuation of foreign nationals. All flights out would evacuate the Americans. . . . although Ambassador Martin wanted to evacuate all friendly South Vietnamese. The President ordered Martin to leave on the next helicopter . . . . The Marines had special orders to arrest and take Martin if he refused to evacuate.[v]

By 5 a.m. on April 30, the last evacuees left the Embassy, from which approximately 2,100 people had been saved, over half of whom were either Vietnamese or third-country nationals. Sadly, about 350 Vietnamese who were eligible for evacuation were left behind.[vi]

During the operation, U.S. aircraft had flown 1,422 sorties, including 660 by the helicopters alone. By 12 p.m. on April 30, 1975, “Communist flags waived over Saigon’s Presidential Palace.”

In addition to U.S. forces, a number of South Vietnamese participated in the airlift – although they were not part of the original plan:

Some of the South Vietnamese aircraft had flown out to the ships at sea, probably by following American evacuation helicopters. Those which recovered on small ships . . . discharged their passengers, then were dumped into the South China Sea, at least 45 South Vietnamese Air Force helicopters met their fate in this fashion.[vii]

Other small aircraft were involved as well, including in the heroic flight of South Vietnamese Air Force Major Bung-Ly:

Out of nowhere this little Bird Dog . . . an observation airplane – he was circling the ship and all of a sudden he flew right down the flight deck at about 100 feet. And he did this like, two or three times. He tried to drop a note on the flight deck. . . . The third one stayed . . . . And this note said “I can land on your runway, would you please move the helicopters to the other side . . . I have one more hour of fuel. . . . would you please rescue me?” And he signed it Major Bung, wife and five children

Although with other such pilots the SOP was to have him ditch the aircraft in the sea and a rescue craft with swimmers would retrieve him from the water, the Midway’s commander, Captain Chambers knew this wouldn’t work:

“If he ditches in the water, he’ll lose those five kids” . . . . that little airplane is a tail-dragger. It would have nosed over and we would have never gotten the kids out of there

So the decision was made to clear the deck for Major Bung’s landing, which required pushing helicopters over the side of the ship. Then the carrier was turned into the wind:

We had 30-40 knots . . . and he started his final approach. He then made a beautiful carrier landing without a tail hook. He touched down right in the wire area . . . . right where he should have, bounced once, rolled up the deck and was stopped before he got to the end . . . . The major and his wife jumped out of the cockpit, pulled the backseat forward, and out tumbled all these little kids. Five little kids they had. She was holding a baby in her arms when he landed.

If you liked this article, you might also enjoy our new popular podcast, The BrainFood Show (iTunes, Spotify, Google Play Music, Feed), as well as:

NewsGuard Browser Extension Aims to Alert You to Fake News Sites

If you are having trouble keep tracking of site's that are considered reputable news sources verses ones that are not, a new browser extension from NewsGuard may be of help.

In a increasingly divided political climate, new web sites are constantly being created that cater to a particular political group or world view. While many of these web sites are reporting on current events in a fair and truthful manner, there are some that are considered to make up stories, conspiracy theories, or promote misinformation in order to cater to their visitors.

In order to help users determine legitimate news from what is considered non-credible news, NewsGuard - an organizatio that "assesses the credibility and transparency of news websites" - has created a Chrome and Edge browser extension that will inform you about the credibility of news sites when you visit them and brief information about the site.

When installed, the NewsGuard extension will display different rating colors for news sites that you visit. These ratings are either green for credible sites, red for sites that"fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability", purple for satire news sites, yellow for sites that anyone can contribute to, and grey for sites that have not been reviewed or are currently under review.

For example, some of the sites considered to be liberal or progressive and are flagged as red news sources by NewsGuard are,, and For conservative or alt-right sites, NewsGuard flagged,, and as red news sources.

You can see examples of how these ratings are displayed by NewsGuard in the images below.

Green Status: Considered a Credible News Site

Red Status: Considered a Non-Credible News Site

Purple Status: Considered a Satire News Site

Yellow Status: Users Contributed Site

NewsGuard Extension also shows ratings in search results

The NewsGuard section will also display rating symbols next to search results when using Bing and Google. This allows users who are searching for a particular subject to pick and choose sites that are considered reputable and to avoid those that are considered by NewsGuard to not be credible news sources.

Google Search Results with Ratings

Even though NewsGuard states they objectively rate sites using independent journalists and nine criteria, ultimately there will be users who feel differently about how a site is rated. If that is the case, NewsGuard allows you to report inaccurate classifications. If a mistake has been made, NewsGuard states that "The corrections will make clear what the original error was and how the NewsGuard Nutrition Label has been corrected."

31 May 2021 – 26 Aug 2021

Program Schedule

Module 1: Build the Foundation
Online, self-paced content with two live faculty sessions
31 May 2021 – 09 Jul 2021

Module 2: Explore and Engage
Online, live content
12 Jul 2021 – 27 Jul 2021

Module 3: Apply and Innovate
Online, self-paced content with two live faculty-led sessions
28 Jul 2021 – 26 Aug 2021


Application Requirements

Qualified candidates are admitted on a rolling, space-available basis. Early applications are encouraged.

Payment Information

Payment is due upon admission. Your space is secured upon receipt of full payment.

Awarded Upon completion

History of the Future

On October 24, 1995, the FNC unanimously passed a resolution defining the term Internet. This definition was developed in consultation with members of the internet and intellectual property rights communities. RESOLUTION: The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following language reflects our definition of the term “Internet”. “Internet” refers to the global information system that — (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols and (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein.

The Internet has changed much in the two decades since it came into existence. It was conceived in the era of time-sharing, but has survived into the era of personal computers, client-server and peer-to-peer computing, and the network computer. It was designed before LANs existed, but has accommodated that new network technology, as well as the more recent ATM and frame switched services. It was envisioned as supporting a range of functions from file sharing and remote login to resource sharing and collaboration, and has spawned electronic mail and more recently the World Wide Web. But most important, it started as the creation of a small band of dedicated researchers, and has grown to be a commercial success with billions of dollars of annual investment.

One should not conclude that the Internet has now finished changing. The Internet, although a network in name and geography, is a creature of the computer, not the traditional network of the telephone or television industry. It will, indeed it must, continue to change and evolve at the speed of the computer industry if it is to remain relevant. It is now changing to provide new services such as real time transport, in order to support, for example, audio and video streams.

The availability of pervasive networking (i.e., the Internet) along with powerful affordable computing and communications in portable form (i.e., laptop computers, two-way pagers, PDAs, cellular phones), is making possible a new paradigm of nomadic computing and communications. This evolution will bring us new applications – Internet telephone and, slightly further out, Internet television. It is evolving to permit more sophisticated forms of pricing and cost recovery, a perhaps painful requirement in this commercial world. It is changing to accommodate yet another generation of underlying network technologies with different characteristics and requirements, e.g. broadband residential access and satellites. New modes of access and new forms of service will spawn new applications, which in turn will drive further evolution of the net itself.

The most pressing question for the future of the Internet is not how the technology will change, but how the process of change and evolution itself will be managed. As this paper describes, the architecture of the Internet has always been driven by a core group of designers, but the form of that group has changed as the number of interested parties has grown. With the success of the Internet has come a proliferation of stakeholders – stakeholders now with an economic as well as an intellectual investment in the network.

We now see, in the debates over control of the domain name space and the form of the next generation IP addresses, a struggle to find the next social structure that will guide the Internet in the future. The form of that structure will be harder to find, given the large number of concerned stakeholders. At the same time, the industry struggles to find the economic rationale for the large investment needed for the future growth, for example to upgrade residential access to a more suitable technology. If the Internet stumbles, it will not be because we lack for technology, vision, or motivation. It will be because we cannot set a direction and march collectively into the future.


  1. Senapus

    The question is interesting, I will also take part in the discussion. Together we can come to the right answer.

  2. Starr

    Bomb watch everyone!

  3. Iaokim

    What necessary phrase ... Great, a remarkable idea

Write a message