Freddy Jackson’s Ghost:
The above scary picture was taken by Sir Victor Goddard in 1919 which was published for the first time in 1975 to view by public. All the squadron members of the Goddard were captured in this picture which served the nation during World War I. The photo also captured an extra ghostly face which was later on described as the face of Freddy Jackson who accidentally had lost his life two days earlier because of an airplane propeller.
Overtoun Bridge :
A very famous arch bridge is commonly known with the name the Overtoun Bridge in Milton, Dumbarton, Scotland. This historical bridge stands in this area since 1859. The strange fact about this bridge is that it has taken lives of several dogs. Every dog jumped from the same point into the same direction. If a dog couldn’t die in first attempt, it came again on the same point, in same direction and jumped again to death
Even more strange are the circumstances behind these incidents of kamikaze canines. Not only have they been plummeting to their deaths from the bridge, but many have witnessed the dogs actually climbing the parapet wall before making the jump. Even stranger are the reports of dogs surviving their brush with death, only to return to the bridge for a second attempt.
The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has sent representatives to investigate, but they too were stumped by the cause of the strange behavior.
In truth, it is almost certain that these dogs are not "committing suicide," (a concept that makes little sense in reference to animals) and that they do not intend to die, but rather something is luring them off the bridge before the dogs have time to realize the height. Though many theories have arisen on why these doggy 'suicides' occur at such a regular pace, perhaps the best theory is that a mink is marking the area with very strong scent, and that scent, combined with the bridge wall which makes it impossible for the dogs to realize the height, send the canines leaping over the edge after the compelling scent.
Even more strange are the circumstances behind these incidents of kamikaze canines. Not only have they been plummeting to their deaths from the bridge, but many have witnessed the dogs actually climbing the parapet wall before making the jump. Even stranger are the reports of dogs surviving their brush with death, only to return to the bridge for a second attempt.
The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has sent representatives to investigate, but they too were stumped by the cause of the strange behavior.
In truth, it is almost certain that these dogs are not "committing suicide," (a concept that makes little sense in reference to animals) and that they do not intend to die, but rather something is luring them off the bridge before the dogs have time to realize the height. Though many theories have arisen on why these doggy 'suicides' occur at such a regular pace, perhaps the best theory is that a mink is marking the area with very strong scent, and that scent, combined with the bridge wall which makes it impossible for the dogs to realize the height, send the canines leaping over the edge after the compelling scent.
BERMUDA TRIANGLE :
Located off the South-Eastern coast of the United States and in the Atlantic Ocean, Bermuda triangle has its corners at Miami(Florida), San Juan(Puerto Rico) and Bermuda(the north-Atlantic island). More than 1000 ships and air-planes have mysteriously disappeared from this triangle over the past few centuries and continue to do so. Surprisingly, the ships and planes simply disappear even when everything(no human errors or equipment failures or natural calamities) seems to be perfectly alright.Also referred to as the Devil’s Triangle, this area has engulfed huge planes and ships including the Flight 19, PBM Martin Mariner, Tudor Star Tiger, Flight DC-3, Flight 441, C-54 Skymaster and Marine Sulphur Queen.
Times and now, man has given his own explanations to such odd incidents, from demons to monsters to extraterrestrial invaders. And many other paranormal theories talk of a suspension of laws of physics in this triangle.Some speculate that unknown and mysterious forces account for the unexplained disappearances, such as extraterrestrials capturing humans for study; the influence of the lost continent of Atlantis; vortices that suck objects into other dimensions; and other whimsical ideas. Some explanations are more grounded in science, if not in evidence. These include oceanic flatulence (methane gas erupting from ocean sediments) and disruptions in geomagnetic lines of flux.The ocean has always been a mysterious place to humans, and when foul weather or poor navigation is involved, it can be a very deadly place. This is true all over the world. There is no evidence that mysterious disappearances occur with any greater frequency in the Bermuda Triangle than in any other large, well-traveled area of the ocean.
MONALISA :
This most famous portrait by Leonardo Da Vinci is in itself an unresolved mystery of all times. The two biggest mysteries are her identity and the way she smiles.
The most recent explanation about this identity states that it is the feminine version of Da Vinci himself. Digital analysis reveals that the facial characteristics of Da Vinci are in perfect alignment with those of the woman in the painting.
Then comes the way the lady smiles!! The appearance and disappearance of the lady’s smile really is an attribute to the viewer’s vision and this mystery is explained using the art technique sfumato- developed by Da Vinci. In this technique the painting is left a bit blurry, thereby leaving its interpretation on the viewer’s choice!!
The Lost Island of Atlantis :
One of the oldest mysteries in the world, the legend of Atlantis has mystified humanity since ancient times. According to the Greek philosopher Plato, Atlantis was a large island somewhere west of the Pillars of Hercules (the Rock of Gibraltar) and the home of an incredibly advanced civilization known as the Atlanteans. Plato described Atlantis as a place of immense beauty with a palace compound in the center of three ringed canals. He said that every king that inherited the palace would add to it, trying to surpass his predecessor and by doing so they made it a palace that surpassed any other in both beauty and wealth. The Atlanteans themselves were blessed with wealth but at the same they were incredibly ambitious, constantly seeking power. Atlantis is said to have met its end when it was hit by a giant earthquake and swallowed by the sea. But is any of this the truth or is the story of Atlantis just a myth?
CHUPAS :
Chupas or you may say UFOs are yet most mysterious alien objects in the world. Mostly such objects are seen in Brazil’s eastern forests in the night. People claimed these objects as metallic-like smaller objects that mostly are seen on the treetops. They produce the sound same like we hear coming from a transformer or refrigerator. Chupas are at No. 10 in our top famous weird mysteries that are lesser known to the world.
Ladakh Magnetic Hill:
This a sign board at what has famously come to be known as the ‘Magnetic Hill’ in Ladakh. It invites you to be a part of and experience this mystifying phenomenon first hand. Follow the instructions on the signage and your car actually starts moving on its own at speeds of 10-20 km per hour. And for those of you who are thinking ‘The movement must have been due to the downhill descent and it was just following the rules of gravity.’ Turn your car in the opposite direction and repeat the steps. It will start moving uphill!
Who could have imagined that a vehicle could move up a steep mountain, with its ignition off? Sounds quite unbelievable! Well, this magnet magic can be experienced while you are travelling to Leh-Ladakh.
Location of Magnetic Hill in Ladakh
Hit the Leh-Kargil-Baltic National Highway, and you reach the Magnetic Hill. The hill lies at a distance of 30 km from the town of Leh, at an elevation of around 14,000 feet above sea level. To the eastern side of the hill flows the Sindhu River, originating in Tibet.
The local administration of this region has also put up a bill board marking the hill, to help tourists recognize the Magnetic Hill. The board clearly states the whole phenomenon allowing you to be a part of this one of a kind experience.
The magnetic mystery explained
Many claim that natural or even supernatural forces are at work here causing the magnetic attractions. However, there is some scientific reasoning to this phenomenon as well.
The Magnetic Hill is a place where the layout of the surrounding land produces the optical illusion that a very slight downhill slope appears to be an uphill slope. Thus, a vehicle left out of gear will appear to be rolling uphill. The slope of gravity hills is an optical illusion, although
A completely or majorly obstructed horizon is the most important factor contributing to the illusion. As, in the absence of a horizon it becomes difficult to judge the slope of a surface. If the horizon cannot be seen or is not level, then we may be fooled by objects that we expect to be vertical but that really are not.
Another theory is that false perspective might also play a role. Objects far away may seem smaller or larger than they really are. This is a remarkably common illusion that is found in numerous locations around the world. Usually it is a stretch of road in a hilly area where the level horizon is obscured.
Who could have imagined that a vehicle could move up a steep mountain, with its ignition off? Sounds quite unbelievable! Well, this magnet magic can be experienced while you are travelling to Leh-Ladakh.
Location of Magnetic Hill in Ladakh
Hit the Leh-Kargil-Baltic National Highway, and you reach the Magnetic Hill. The hill lies at a distance of 30 km from the town of Leh, at an elevation of around 14,000 feet above sea level. To the eastern side of the hill flows the Sindhu River, originating in Tibet.
The local administration of this region has also put up a bill board marking the hill, to help tourists recognize the Magnetic Hill. The board clearly states the whole phenomenon allowing you to be a part of this one of a kind experience.
The magnetic mystery explained
Many claim that natural or even supernatural forces are at work here causing the magnetic attractions. However, there is some scientific reasoning to this phenomenon as well.
The Magnetic Hill is a place where the layout of the surrounding land produces the optical illusion that a very slight downhill slope appears to be an uphill slope. Thus, a vehicle left out of gear will appear to be rolling uphill. The slope of gravity hills is an optical illusion, although
A completely or majorly obstructed horizon is the most important factor contributing to the illusion. As, in the absence of a horizon it becomes difficult to judge the slope of a surface. If the horizon cannot be seen or is not level, then we may be fooled by objects that we expect to be vertical but that really are not.
Another theory is that false perspective might also play a role. Objects far away may seem smaller or larger than they really are. This is a remarkably common illusion that is found in numerous locations around the world. Usually it is a stretch of road in a hilly area where the level horizon is obscured.
WikiLeaks declares war on banking blockade:
WikiLeaks declares war on banking blockadeSunday 16th December, 23:00 GMTToday sees the launch of the Freedom of the Press Foundation − a new initiative inspired by the fight against the two-year-long extra-judicial financial embargo imposed on WikiLeaks by U.S. financial giants including Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and the Bank of America.
The Freedom of the Press Foundation, an initiative of Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) co-founder John Perry Barlow, former Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the actor John Cusack and others, will crowd-source fundraising and support for organizations or individuals under attack for publishing the truth. It aims to promote "aggressive, public-interest journalism focused on exposing mismanagement, corruption and law-breaking in government".
Over the last two years the blockade has stopped 95 per cent of contributions to WikiLeaks, running primary cash reserves down from more than a million dollars in 2010 to under a thousand dollars, as of December 2012. Only an aggressive attack against the blockade will permit WikiLeaks to continue publishing through 2013.
The new initiative, combined with a recent victory in Germany, means contributions to WikiLeaks now have tax-deductible status throughout the United States and Europe.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ publisher, said: “We’ve fought this immoral blockade for two long years. We smashed it in the courts. We smashed it in the Treasury. We smashed it in France. We smashed it in Germany. And now, with strong and generous friends who still believe in First Amendment rights, we’re going to smash it in the United States as well.”
The Foundation’s first ’bundle’ will crowd-source funds for WikiLeaks, the National Security Archive, The UpTake and MuckRock News. Donors will be able to use a slider to set how much of their donation they wish each organization to receive and can donate to WikiLeaks using their credit cards. The Foundation holds 501(c) charitable status, so donations are tax-deductible in the U.S. Other courageous press organizations will be added as time goes by. It will not be possible to see by banking records what portion of a donor’s contribution, if any, goes to WikiLeaks.
It is admitted by Visa, MasterCard and others that the blockade is entirely as a result of WikiLeaks’ publications. In fact, the U.S. Treasury has cleared WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks has won against Visa in court, but the blockade continues.
John Perry Barlow, a board member of the new Foundation, says the initiative aims to achieve more than just crowd-sourced fundraising: "We hope it makes a moral argument against these sorts of actions. But it could also be the basis of a legal challenge. We now have private organizations with the ability to stifle free expression. These companies have no bill of rights that applies to their action – they only have terms of service."
The WikiLeaks banking blockade showed how devastating such extra-judicial measures can be for not-for-profit investigative journalism and free press organizations. Initiatives such as the Freedom of the Press Foundation are vital to sustain a truly independent free press.
In heavily redacted European Commission documents recently released by WikiLeaks, MasterCard Europe admitted that U.S. Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Congressman Peter T. King were both directly involved in instigating the blockade.
As journalist Glenn Greenwald − also on the FPF board − recently wrote: "What possible political value can the internet serve, or journalism generally, if the U.S. government, outside the confines of law, is empowered − as it did here − to cripple the operating abilities of any group which meaningfully challenges its policies and exposes its wrongdoing?... That the U.S. government largely succeeded in using extra-legal and extra-judicial means to cripple an adverse journalistic outlet is a truly consequential episode: nobody, regardless of one’s views on WikiLeaks, should want any government to have that power."
But what of the chance these U.S. companies will blockade the FPF like they did WikiLeaks? "Let Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and all the rest block the independent Freedom of the Press Foundation. Let them demonstrate to the world once again who they really are," said Mr Assange.
Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks spokesman, is available for interviews on this topic: Contact Kristinn
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Other ways to donate
The Freedom of the Press Foundation, an initiative of Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) co-founder John Perry Barlow, former Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the actor John Cusack and others, will crowd-source fundraising and support for organizations or individuals under attack for publishing the truth. It aims to promote "aggressive, public-interest journalism focused on exposing mismanagement, corruption and law-breaking in government".
Over the last two years the blockade has stopped 95 per cent of contributions to WikiLeaks, running primary cash reserves down from more than a million dollars in 2010 to under a thousand dollars, as of December 2012. Only an aggressive attack against the blockade will permit WikiLeaks to continue publishing through 2013.
The new initiative, combined with a recent victory in Germany, means contributions to WikiLeaks now have tax-deductible status throughout the United States and Europe.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ publisher, said: “We’ve fought this immoral blockade for two long years. We smashed it in the courts. We smashed it in the Treasury. We smashed it in France. We smashed it in Germany. And now, with strong and generous friends who still believe in First Amendment rights, we’re going to smash it in the United States as well.”
The Foundation’s first ’bundle’ will crowd-source funds for WikiLeaks, the National Security Archive, The UpTake and MuckRock News. Donors will be able to use a slider to set how much of their donation they wish each organization to receive and can donate to WikiLeaks using their credit cards. The Foundation holds 501(c) charitable status, so donations are tax-deductible in the U.S. Other courageous press organizations will be added as time goes by. It will not be possible to see by banking records what portion of a donor’s contribution, if any, goes to WikiLeaks.
It is admitted by Visa, MasterCard and others that the blockade is entirely as a result of WikiLeaks’ publications. In fact, the U.S. Treasury has cleared WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks has won against Visa in court, but the blockade continues.
John Perry Barlow, a board member of the new Foundation, says the initiative aims to achieve more than just crowd-sourced fundraising: "We hope it makes a moral argument against these sorts of actions. But it could also be the basis of a legal challenge. We now have private organizations with the ability to stifle free expression. These companies have no bill of rights that applies to their action – they only have terms of service."
The WikiLeaks banking blockade showed how devastating such extra-judicial measures can be for not-for-profit investigative journalism and free press organizations. Initiatives such as the Freedom of the Press Foundation are vital to sustain a truly independent free press.
In heavily redacted European Commission documents recently released by WikiLeaks, MasterCard Europe admitted that U.S. Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Congressman Peter T. King were both directly involved in instigating the blockade.
As journalist Glenn Greenwald − also on the FPF board − recently wrote: "What possible political value can the internet serve, or journalism generally, if the U.S. government, outside the confines of law, is empowered − as it did here − to cripple the operating abilities of any group which meaningfully challenges its policies and exposes its wrongdoing?... That the U.S. government largely succeeded in using extra-legal and extra-judicial means to cripple an adverse journalistic outlet is a truly consequential episode: nobody, regardless of one’s views on WikiLeaks, should want any government to have that power."
But what of the chance these U.S. companies will blockade the FPF like they did WikiLeaks? "Let Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and all the rest block the independent Freedom of the Press Foundation. Let them demonstrate to the world once again who they really are," said Mr Assange.
Kristinn Hrafnsson, WikiLeaks spokesman, is available for interviews on this topic: Contact Kristinn
Freedom of the Press Foundation
Other ways to donate
Inside the secrets and lies behind ’Secrets and Lies’:
Overview of files released as part of Ofcom complaint
This package contains never before released details about Julian Assange and the operations of WikiLeaks.
It contains more than five hours of previously unpublished interviews with Mr Assange and many other materials.
It contains full details of Julian Assange’s formal complaint to Ofcom, the UK’s statutory regulator for broadcasting, about the Channel 4 funded documentary "WikiLeaks: Secrets & Lies", which was secretly co-produced by the Guardian’s David Leigh as part of the Guardian’s legal dispute with WikiLeaks. This conflict of interest was kept from viewers in violation of U.K. broadcasting standards.
The WikiLeaks-Guardian dispute arose when the Guardian broke of all three parts of WikiLeaks’ Cablegate contract (security, confidentiality/source protection, embargo time). A few senior staff of the Guardian, including Leigh and his brother-in-law, editor Alan Rusbridger (who signed the contract), possibly fearful for their own personal liability and reputations after the breach, embarked on a campaign against WikiLeaks before a damages case could be brought, despite ongoing objections from other Guardian staff.
The documentary aired on Channel 4’s More4 cable channel on 29 November 2011 – six days before an appeal ruling was due from the High Court regarding Julian Assange’s case.
Prior to filming, "Oxford Films" pitched the documentary to WikiLeaks as a factual accounting of the WikiLeaks story focusing on the substance, content and impact of the Iraq, Afghan and diplomatic cables and the pre-trial abuse of Bradley Manning in order to gain an interview with Julian Assange for the programme, including giving written undertakings that the programme would not focus on Julian’s personal life or any "unrelated legal proceedings". Instead, Oxford Films produced a documentary which did precisely what it had promised not to, but which suited the agenda of its concealed partner, the Guardian newspaper, as represented by David Leigh.
David Leigh – a well-known adversary of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and a key player in some of the issues discussed in the programme – was also used as the programme’s fact-checker and was paid ’consultancy fees’ for this role, despite his own controversial involvement in events and his bias against WikiLeaks being known and admitted to by the named producers.
The documents released here include a transcript of five hours of unedited interview footage shot for the programme and all correspondence with both the producers and with Ofcom. Together, these documents represent a great compendium of factual statements.
The material contains the following significant information. (The easiest way to access the full details is from the Response to Ofcom Preliminary View document, in which relevant transcript timecodes are given):
Correspondence regarding the submission of a witness statement to the UK’s Leveson Inquiry into phone-hacking regarding Guardian journalist Nick Davies’ testimony to the Inquiry about a remark falsely attributed to Julian Assange that he said "They’re informants, they deserve to die". This is a dangerous claim in the context of an ongoing US espionage investigation against WikiLeaks for publishing these documents in which "intent" to harm US interests is part of the espionage statute, as both Leigh and Davies know. The libel derives from David Leigh, who has repeated it, in various formulations, to attack Assange, claiming that the remark was made at a specific dinner at which Afghan War Diaries redactions were discussed. The signed witness statement is by a journalist working for Der Spiegel (a German weekly mazagine which partnered with WikiLeaks on its 2010 releases) who was present at the dinner and confirms that Julian Assange never made a remark with such a meaning. Nick Davies wasn’t even present at the dinner. A transcript of Nick Davies’ testimony is included as an attachment to page for reference. Julian Assange has previously been invited to submit evidence to the Leveson Inquiry regarding the failure of the Press Complaints Commission to get UK newspapers to correct articles falsely stating that he has been ’charged’ in relation to allegations made in Sweden, following more than 73 separate complaints to the PCC.
Full details of the redaction and harm minimisation processes agreed by the media partnership – WikiLeaks, the Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times – for the release of the Afghan War Diaries, including agreement that it was the job of the newspaper journalists to identify document types and patterns that likely needed to be redacted. The programme deliberately excludes this fact and instead allows Guardian interviewees to blame WikiLeaks for the failure to redact these names and the subsequent agrressive stance of the Pentagon.
In-depth discussion of the analysis, editing and follow-up investigation of the Collateral Murder video and how its release by WikiLeaks blind-sided the Pentagon spin machine for two days.
Details of the Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks convened by the US Department of Justice to try to indict Julian Assange and WikiLeaks staff and associates on espionage charges, and the high-level political implications revealed by his battle against extradition to Sweden, are both discussed in depth during Assange’s interview for the programme. Virtually none of this material is included in the final edit. Instead, the programme allows Guardian interviewees and a former WikiLeaks employee sacked for misappropriation to give a salacious and partial account of sexual allegations made against an uncharged man.
A long-standing libel has been that Julian Assange said "They’re informants, they deserve to die" when discussing the redaction of the Afghan War Diaries with journalists from Der Spiegel and the Guardian during a dinner in London in July 2010. The supporting materials to this complaint show this is untrue. They include a signed witness statement from a Der Spiegel journalist who was present at the dinner confirming that Assange never made this remark. The journalist told the producer this off-camera but the producer still allowed Guardian interviewees to repeat the libel in the finished programme.
That Julian Assange didn’t want the New York Times involved in the Cablegate release of State Department diplomatic cables because of their previous coverage of the story uncovered in the Iraq War Logs of how US forces handed over Iraqi detainees for torture, which they ran with the headline "Some detainees fared worse in Iraqi hands". The Ofcom complaint details how the reasoning behind his decision was clearly explained in Assange’s interview but dishonestly edited in the programme as being about a "sleazy hit piece" the New York Times ran on him. The interview also covers in depth Assange’s assessment of the US media landscape and the New York Times’ position within it.
That Julian Assange’s spectacular fall-out with the Guardian followed a tip-off from journalists that the Guardian and the New York Times were colluding to cut WikiLeaks out of the media partnership for the Cablegate release and to secretly start publishing while WikiLeaks still had people in the United States. Assange’s interview for the programme sets out the full details of this plot, which led to a heated 1 November 2010 legal confrontation at the Guardian’s offices about it, but none of this material is used in the screened ’documentary’. The edited programme omits key facts to give an untruthful, pro-Guardian account of events. The Ofcom complaint contains independent corroboration of the facts by Der Spiegel journalists. However, repeated requests that Ofcom also obtain the unedited interview footage of Der Spiegel journalists shot for the programme in which they confirm these facts on camera have been refused by the regulator.
The full story behind "Passwordgate" – the publication of the encryption key to the unredacted cableset in Guardian journalist David Leigh’s book – and the subsequent release of the unredacted cables onto the internet. How the Guardian broke its contract with WikiLeaks (referred to as Doc N in the Ofcom complaint and included with this information for reference), and how it ignored all three security measures stipulated in it, which were designed to keep the encrypted files safe.
A full rebuttal (with evidence) of the media claim that Julian Assange stated that the Swedish allegations against him were a CIA plot.
In his own words: How Julian Assange really sees America, and why he is labelled "anti-American" by Guardian journalists to the public.
In his own words: How Julian Assange sees the role of whistleblowers and their value to society in increasing human knowledge.
Background on Ofcom’s investigative process:
Ofcom aims to reach its final adjudication of complaints within 90 days of its formal Entertainment Decision to investigate a particular complaint. Ofcom investigations follow a standard procedure:
Complaint (must be received within 20 days of original broadcast, or reasons why not given)
Ofcom’s Entertainment Decision (within 25 days)
Ofcom requests broadcast programme, unedited footage and transcripts from broadcaster, which are all then passed to the complainant
Broadcaster’s formal Response (1 month allowed)
Ofcom prepares Preliminary View (no timescale)
Complainant’s reply to Broadcaster’s Response and Preliminary View (10 working days allowed)
Broadcaster’s final response (10 working days allowed)
Ofcom prepares Final Adjudication (no timescale)
This package contains never before released details about Julian Assange and the operations of WikiLeaks.
It contains more than five hours of previously unpublished interviews with Mr Assange and many other materials.
It contains full details of Julian Assange’s formal complaint to Ofcom, the UK’s statutory regulator for broadcasting, about the Channel 4 funded documentary "WikiLeaks: Secrets & Lies", which was secretly co-produced by the Guardian’s David Leigh as part of the Guardian’s legal dispute with WikiLeaks. This conflict of interest was kept from viewers in violation of U.K. broadcasting standards.
The WikiLeaks-Guardian dispute arose when the Guardian broke of all three parts of WikiLeaks’ Cablegate contract (security, confidentiality/source protection, embargo time). A few senior staff of the Guardian, including Leigh and his brother-in-law, editor Alan Rusbridger (who signed the contract), possibly fearful for their own personal liability and reputations after the breach, embarked on a campaign against WikiLeaks before a damages case could be brought, despite ongoing objections from other Guardian staff.
The documentary aired on Channel 4’s More4 cable channel on 29 November 2011 – six days before an appeal ruling was due from the High Court regarding Julian Assange’s case.
Prior to filming, "Oxford Films" pitched the documentary to WikiLeaks as a factual accounting of the WikiLeaks story focusing on the substance, content and impact of the Iraq, Afghan and diplomatic cables and the pre-trial abuse of Bradley Manning in order to gain an interview with Julian Assange for the programme, including giving written undertakings that the programme would not focus on Julian’s personal life or any "unrelated legal proceedings". Instead, Oxford Films produced a documentary which did precisely what it had promised not to, but which suited the agenda of its concealed partner, the Guardian newspaper, as represented by David Leigh.
David Leigh – a well-known adversary of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and a key player in some of the issues discussed in the programme – was also used as the programme’s fact-checker and was paid ’consultancy fees’ for this role, despite his own controversial involvement in events and his bias against WikiLeaks being known and admitted to by the named producers.
The documents released here include a transcript of five hours of unedited interview footage shot for the programme and all correspondence with both the producers and with Ofcom. Together, these documents represent a great compendium of factual statements.
The material contains the following significant information. (The easiest way to access the full details is from the Response to Ofcom Preliminary View document, in which relevant transcript timecodes are given):
Correspondence regarding the submission of a witness statement to the UK’s Leveson Inquiry into phone-hacking regarding Guardian journalist Nick Davies’ testimony to the Inquiry about a remark falsely attributed to Julian Assange that he said "They’re informants, they deserve to die". This is a dangerous claim in the context of an ongoing US espionage investigation against WikiLeaks for publishing these documents in which "intent" to harm US interests is part of the espionage statute, as both Leigh and Davies know. The libel derives from David Leigh, who has repeated it, in various formulations, to attack Assange, claiming that the remark was made at a specific dinner at which Afghan War Diaries redactions were discussed. The signed witness statement is by a journalist working for Der Spiegel (a German weekly mazagine which partnered with WikiLeaks on its 2010 releases) who was present at the dinner and confirms that Julian Assange never made a remark with such a meaning. Nick Davies wasn’t even present at the dinner. A transcript of Nick Davies’ testimony is included as an attachment to page for reference. Julian Assange has previously been invited to submit evidence to the Leveson Inquiry regarding the failure of the Press Complaints Commission to get UK newspapers to correct articles falsely stating that he has been ’charged’ in relation to allegations made in Sweden, following more than 73 separate complaints to the PCC.
Full details of the redaction and harm minimisation processes agreed by the media partnership – WikiLeaks, the Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times – for the release of the Afghan War Diaries, including agreement that it was the job of the newspaper journalists to identify document types and patterns that likely needed to be redacted. The programme deliberately excludes this fact and instead allows Guardian interviewees to blame WikiLeaks for the failure to redact these names and the subsequent agrressive stance of the Pentagon.
In-depth discussion of the analysis, editing and follow-up investigation of the Collateral Murder video and how its release by WikiLeaks blind-sided the Pentagon spin machine for two days.
Details of the Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks convened by the US Department of Justice to try to indict Julian Assange and WikiLeaks staff and associates on espionage charges, and the high-level political implications revealed by his battle against extradition to Sweden, are both discussed in depth during Assange’s interview for the programme. Virtually none of this material is included in the final edit. Instead, the programme allows Guardian interviewees and a former WikiLeaks employee sacked for misappropriation to give a salacious and partial account of sexual allegations made against an uncharged man.
A long-standing libel has been that Julian Assange said "They’re informants, they deserve to die" when discussing the redaction of the Afghan War Diaries with journalists from Der Spiegel and the Guardian during a dinner in London in July 2010. The supporting materials to this complaint show this is untrue. They include a signed witness statement from a Der Spiegel journalist who was present at the dinner confirming that Assange never made this remark. The journalist told the producer this off-camera but the producer still allowed Guardian interviewees to repeat the libel in the finished programme.
That Julian Assange didn’t want the New York Times involved in the Cablegate release of State Department diplomatic cables because of their previous coverage of the story uncovered in the Iraq War Logs of how US forces handed over Iraqi detainees for torture, which they ran with the headline "Some detainees fared worse in Iraqi hands". The Ofcom complaint details how the reasoning behind his decision was clearly explained in Assange’s interview but dishonestly edited in the programme as being about a "sleazy hit piece" the New York Times ran on him. The interview also covers in depth Assange’s assessment of the US media landscape and the New York Times’ position within it.
That Julian Assange’s spectacular fall-out with the Guardian followed a tip-off from journalists that the Guardian and the New York Times were colluding to cut WikiLeaks out of the media partnership for the Cablegate release and to secretly start publishing while WikiLeaks still had people in the United States. Assange’s interview for the programme sets out the full details of this plot, which led to a heated 1 November 2010 legal confrontation at the Guardian’s offices about it, but none of this material is used in the screened ’documentary’. The edited programme omits key facts to give an untruthful, pro-Guardian account of events. The Ofcom complaint contains independent corroboration of the facts by Der Spiegel journalists. However, repeated requests that Ofcom also obtain the unedited interview footage of Der Spiegel journalists shot for the programme in which they confirm these facts on camera have been refused by the regulator.
The full story behind "Passwordgate" – the publication of the encryption key to the unredacted cableset in Guardian journalist David Leigh’s book – and the subsequent release of the unredacted cables onto the internet. How the Guardian broke its contract with WikiLeaks (referred to as Doc N in the Ofcom complaint and included with this information for reference), and how it ignored all three security measures stipulated in it, which were designed to keep the encrypted files safe.
A full rebuttal (with evidence) of the media claim that Julian Assange stated that the Swedish allegations against him were a CIA plot.
In his own words: How Julian Assange really sees America, and why he is labelled "anti-American" by Guardian journalists to the public.
In his own words: How Julian Assange sees the role of whistleblowers and their value to society in increasing human knowledge.
Background on Ofcom’s investigative process:
Ofcom aims to reach its final adjudication of complaints within 90 days of its formal Entertainment Decision to investigate a particular complaint. Ofcom investigations follow a standard procedure:
Complaint (must be received within 20 days of original broadcast, or reasons why not given)
Ofcom’s Entertainment Decision (within 25 days)
Ofcom requests broadcast programme, unedited footage and transcripts from broadcaster, which are all then passed to the complainant
Broadcaster’s formal Response (1 month allowed)
Ofcom prepares Preliminary View (no timescale)
Complainant’s reply to Broadcaster’s Response and Preliminary View (10 working days allowed)
Broadcaster’s final response (10 working days allowed)
Ofcom prepares Final Adjudication (no timescale)