Myra Bronstein

I am for action and only action......go MYRA.......something.......anything....proactive......needs to get going...great idea

What do you think of a newspaper ad, strategically timed (Nov 22, or opposite the Bugliosi mini-series for example), to make it clear the JFK murder case is a hot case, never fully investigated, and to tell people how to get further information and what they can do to help realize the clearly stated goals?

Such an ad, e.g., in the NY Times, would be very expensive...

...

"Sometimes being right isn't always the right thing to be."

...

Another great quote.

The purpose of a new group/forum would be to discuss what action to take collectively, as a cohesive group, based on the research and revelations that come out of existing groups and books and websites.

Action oriented as opposed to research oriented.

The key difference being that instead of communicating mainly with other researchers, we'd be communicating with people who normally don't give the decades old JFK assassination a second thought, and who wrongly think that it is irrelevant to today's events and political climate.

Discourse is, with respect to the relation of forces, not merely a surface of inscription, but something that brings about effects.

- Michel Foucault

Brava, Myra!

Great quote Charles.

Thank you.

Here's just one example of a point that could be made in a newspaper ad, and followed up on via the web, youtube, articles, forums, etc.

Ad>

"Are you aware that in 1978 your own government concluded that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was probably "the result of a conspiracy"?

If not, why not?"

Then it could lead into pointers to additional info and, most important, urge people to help achieve our goals.

That's just one example of a simple historical point that could be made.

When I mention that one fact to people (about the HSCA's conclusion) they're stunned.

Here is a thought ... you and Myra start your own forum - problem solved!

Bill Miller

A splendid idea.

I hereby offer the dear lady a free online tutorial service just so long as she carries the promise out

Just to clear up any confusion, I will stay on this site as a member.

The purpose of a new group/forum would be to discuss what action to take collectively, as a cohesive group, based on the research and revelations that come out of existing groups and books and websites.

Action oriented as opposed to research oriented.

The key difference being that instead of communicating mainly with other researchers, we'd be communicating with people who normally don't give the decades old JFK assassination a second thought, and who wrongly think that it is irrelevant to today's events and political climate.

This is continued from the thread: "Replying to John Simkin and the Administration of this Forum" which I don't want to derail.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=15#entry121546

The upshot is, to those who mentioned in other threads that people are free to start their own groups, I totally agree and have been thinking in those terms for some time. And I am not hinting that I'm flouncing off to start my own forum. I'm staying.

And for some time I've wanted to get more strategic and active as a group. And I would like for this group to span all the major JFK forums (which would be quite a trick at this point 'cause most everyone's pissed at me). But still, I have a dream...

My intention, when my horrendous schedule permits, was to start a google or yahoo group, specifically invite John, Rich & Debra, and open it to any others who are interested in taking tangible steps to reveal and expose the truth about President Kennedy's assassination.

Among the steps I'm considering:

-A newspaper ad in the NY times (clearly something requiring big bucks, and therefore hard to do as individuals).

-A clear objective to the ad including but not limited to pushing for enforcement of the JFK record act (aka BK's strategy), and directing people to books and websites where they can learn more).

-Associated, customized, ongoing videos on youtube.

-And so on...

So the other group, whatever it'd be called, would NOT be another research group. There are enough good research groups IMO (even if we do squabble a lot). And Lancer already arranges research meeting, conventions.

It would be specifically chartered with USING the research to educate the public and pressure the appropriate agencies and authorities into doing what they should be doing, as well as countering propaganda.

Here's another difference between the proposed group and the existing research groups, we would agree on the basics of the plot against the president, and LNers and/or trolls will not be tolerated. I won't even pretend to be as tolerant as the John, Rich, Debra.

So that's the upshot of what I've been thinking for a while. Granted the timing is odd (understatement), but what the heck--maybe all the energy from recent discussions can be channeled. And I do tend to work better in groups (yes, really) because I need the cooler heads around me to modulate my fervor.

I feel much urgency about doing this because not only has too much time passed since the crime (duh), but I feel strongly that the internet is the best tool the JFK research/activist community has ever had. And I feel certain that the internet will be targeted asap because it has to terrify the keepers of secrets. So we should use this invaluable tool to the max while we can.

I welcome discussion and input.

Do you guys think think there is sufficient interest in working toward certain goals as a group (across multiple forums) to justify and sustain a dedicated yahoo/google group?

Well I've been percolating on this a lot and even before reading comments today was extremely unhappy with my handling of this situation and my lashing out at John. So I apologize to everyone, particularly John, for being so childish and disruptive. I try to be logical even when upset, and the Jack White situation is upsetting to me because he is extremely special as a person and as a researcher. but I don't think I managed to be completely logical recently. Of course that's no excuse. And I am in no way retracting my words of support for Jack; I'm only stating that I'm disgusted with my own rhetoric and finger pointing.

To those who mentioned that people are free to start their own groups, I totally agree and have been thinking in those terms for some time. And I am not hinting that I'm flouncing off to start my own forum. I'm staying. But for some time I've wanted to get more strategic and active as a group. And I would like for this group to span all the major JFK forums and ideally include John, Rich, Debra... (which would be quite a trick at this point 'cause most everyone's pissed at me). But still, I have a dream...

I don't want to hijack this thread though.

So I'm creating a new one to make a proposal.

Here is the new thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11177

Don't you DARE permit yourself to be bullied out of the playground.

Sincerely,

Charles Drago

Maybe seeing this site as a 'playground' might be part of the problem. At the same time ... the sentiments offered for Myra could also be applied to those who have to enforce some sense of respectability for the purpose that this site was created to serve. Shame on those who stand so close to the mirror that they only see themselves and not the other people around them.

Bill Miller

Bill,

And perhaps part of the problem is the inability of certain members of this Forum to rise above literalness to grasp such heavily nuanced aspects of language as metaphor.

Charles

Gosh

Let us hope you are also using the word "bullied" as a metaphor for perhaps "moderated"

Charles,

Don't you DARE permit yourself to be "moderated" out of choosing your own words.

And thank you for your note. I'll post more on another thread.

On edit, related threads:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11175

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11177

Enough is enough.

John Kennedy is dead. Robert Kennedy is dead. Martin Luther King, Jr. is dead.

Their murderers evade justice.

The world is aflame as a consequence.

And we're ripping ourselves apart in a fury over XXXXXXX swearing?!

You've come a long way from "No More Posts Until Jack is Back."

By the way, Greg, thanks for defending me, It is nice that at least one member gives me support for what I am trying to do. I suspect other members are reluctant to criticise Myra because of her own tendency to be so unpleasant.

John, I like Myra. I admire her feistiness - but yes... sometimes it's a fine line between that and unpleasantness. I also think her loyalty to Jack is admirable. But she was wrong in what she said about you and to some extent, about Andy. And she is wrong in encouraging Jack to believe he should have free reign to say anything he wants with impunity. If she wanted to be a real friend to him, she should tell him his attempts to promulgate the idea that you and/or mods are involved in a conspiracy against him is ludicrous - demonstrably so, and springs entirely from his own imagination.

Thanks Greg, I'll think about what you said.

I do feel a strong loyalty to Jack and it's difficult to see him in this situation.

I must say that I find Myra's post above an extraordinary, irrational and unfair attack on John Simkin. In fact if you wanted a better caricature of an irrational female diatribe ( I await the accusations of sexism with relish - I'll store it with my anti americanism ), you would have to indulge in a good day's march to find one.

Let us not forget here that John funds this forum which he runs with my help for no profit and on top of working full time. He also runs it very fairly. This time he has had enough. Jack White for too long has had carte blanche to traduce anyone with the temerity to hold an opposing view to his. This now has ended. Mr White can still post but the moderators and admins reserve the right to make sure he remains within our board rules..... this is not unreasonable.. live with it - it is not likely to change anytime soon.

...

Aright Andy!

Always there to lower the level of discourse.

I couldn't ask for a better caricature of a misogynist male.

I don't know which depresses more the fact that this garbage is being played out on a forum I helped set up with educational aims in mind, or the fact that I am bothering to respond to such meaningless crap at all

Hmmm...

Andy is talking about making sure a member like Jack "remains within our board rules."

Isn't swearing against the board rules?

So what does it mean then that Andy swears on the forum, within this very post in fact?

Does it mean that swearing is now allowed for all?

Does it mean that only mods and admins can swear on the forum?

Does that mean that Andy, and only Andy, is not bound by the rules of the forum?

Or does it mean that Andy is particularly poor at expressing himself effectively without recourse to swearing?

Andy/Jan 31 2007/post #18>

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9256&st=15

"John's original post in this thread amounted to an appeal for an end to bad language and gratuitous insults. I agree with him incidentally that many of the Americans here appear particularly poor at expressing themselves effectively without recourse to either.""

Andy/Jan 31 2007/post #26>

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9256&st=15

"Just take the message please members that if you continue to swear at each other and abuse each other your posts and perhaps even your membership will be deleted."

Based on Andy's apparent inability to express himself effectively without recourse to swearing, I have to wonder if a few drops of American blood are diluting the ice water in his veins.

Sorry, I have been very busy and have been unable to follow this thread over the last couple of days.

We also have a forum owner who does not have time for all this nonsense, and has put much trust in his mods and admin, which is--IMO--totally proper and respectful of his volunteer staff even if I don't agree with all of his staff selections. Whatever, I happen to have a huge and growing appreciation for John, and for his intellect and energy and research and guidance and teaching skills.

You clearly have no respect for me at all.

...

Wrong John. I respect you as a researcher, educator, and courageous individual willing to take on the established corrupt order.

I mistrust you in that I think you too often tend to take the low road in terms of interpersonal issues, and I think that as a forum administrator you often lack discretion. Here is precisely when my mistrust started:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry82388

Post #11, wherein you responded to allegations that you were a CIA agent (which I believe are false) as follows:

John>"I accept your point about researchers who disagree with your theories spreading rumours about you being CIA. I therefore would not be surprised if people I have clashed with me in the past like Tim Gratz, Tim Carroll, Ashton Gray, Wim Danbaar, Tom Purvis, etc. put it around that I was CIA. As a result of their past history, they would probably not be believed...."

My response came in post #33 in the same thread:

Myra>"The point being that I'll decide for myself what I think of people. It's insulting and suspicious to be told what to think. If John is trying to boost his own credibility by naming names, then he failed with me 'cause I don't appreciate those tactics. They're heavy handed, and frankly kinda catty, in addition to being unprofessional.

Whether it's CIA strategy (which I don't believe) or just bad judgement, it's a negative.

Now, since I've "clashed" with John will I see my name in the next edition of "rogue's gallery"?"

And that's exactly what happened. I ended up in the rogue's gallery because I openly objected to your tactic John (new to me at that point 'cause I was a new member) of attacking people openly by name on your public forum in a heavy-handed attempt to influence readers' opinions.

Since then I've openly objected to your public forum insults of Americans. And most recently I objected to your nasty public digs about Jack's age:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

John>"However, recently, Jack White has started several threads that have been completely untrue. It has been argued that he is an old man who gets confused and because of his “great work in the past” he should be allowed to post his nonsense. While I agree we should be more generous in our attitudes towards our senior citizens, there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough."

"Old man...confused...senior citizen." My god, how condescending and callous.

THAT is why I mistrust you John. Because I think you fight dirty.

Instead of sticking with issues and behavior, you make personal attacks.

So how does that affect my respect for you? It diminishes it.

I still respect you as a researcher, educator, and courageous individual, but not as much as I'd respect you if you were all of these things in addition to being a person who treats others with respect and handles issues with discretion.

Sorry, I have been very busy and have been unable to follow this thread over the last couple of days.

We also have a forum owner who does not have time for all this nonsense, and has put much trust in his mods and admin, which is--IMO--totally proper and respectful of his volunteer staff even if I don't agree with all of his staff selections. Whatever, I happen to have a huge and growing appreciation for John, and for his intellect and energy and research and guidance and teaching skills.

...What you mean to say is that I am sometimes very useful to you. For example, seeking my advice on how to get your websites obtain higher-ranking in the search-engines, having me put a link to your website from my JFK index page, etc. That of course does not stop you having a go at me at the first available opportunity, as this thread shows.

...

We're all useful to each other John, that's the point of a forum like this which benefits from group intelligence and collaborative work. Given that we all ('cept for the trolls) have a common goal, we should be as useful as possible to each other.

A perfect example of that was when you posted info about Citizendium and urged a forum member to post an initial writeup about the assassination of President Kennedy. Within days I (with the help of my writing partner) had the writeup of the JFK murder reviewed by you and posted on Citizendium.

So, were you using members to get something done for the sake of our common goal? Of course you were. Does that stop you form "having a go" at us when you're annoyed? Of course it doesn't.

John>"I suspect other members are reluctant to criticise Myra because of her own tendency to be so unpleasant."

...

Another gratuitous dig, and an attempt to get others to pile onto the trash Myra train.

That's another of your favorite manipulative tactics John, to try to use your position as forum owner to pressure others into openly supporting you.

Here's a classic example from a classic thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...9256&st=225

John/February 11 2007>"The most hurtful factor about this thread is that other members have been unwilling to state that they believe the administrators about the background to this dispute. It is like you are receiving a vote of no confidence. Maybe members fear that if they post they will be the next target for Charles and Myra. However, cowardice is no real defence."

John/October 4 2007>"I suspect other members are reluctant to criticise Myra because of her own tendency to be so unpleasant."

Translation of February post: 'Members are expected and URGED to post in support of me and to criticize Myra.'

Translation of October post: 'Members are expected and URGED to criticize Myra.'

Common denominator of ALL of the above: John's tendency to tell members what to think of others, rather than let them decide for themselves.

I have to wonder if this tendency has been a factor in Jack's situation.

...

Also, as Stephen has pointed out, Jack still has posting rights. If he posts without abusing or lying about other members of the forum, these posts will be let through. The reason he passed these messages to Duane and Myra is he knew that because of the content they would not be made visible.

...

Correction: Jack has not passed along any posts for me to put on this forum. The one message I did post I merely copied from another forum under my own initiative.

I offered to post anything for Jack a few days ago but he declined my offer.

Well so much has been said on this subject by now that even if I can't go back and read all the background skirmishes, I can make some conclusions based on long term observations and recent posts. Bottom line:

This is a boffo forum and I hope it keeps going. But, if it doesn't then the void will quickly be filled and those of us who are dedicated to exposing the truth about what was taken from us, and who took it, will keep pushing forward.

Technical issues are one of the biggest contributing factors in Jack's ongoing forum frustrations, if not the biggest factor. For a variety of reasons mostly beyond the admin's control, the software sometimes acts flakey and makes it harder for some people to post and/or upload pix and/or even stay logged in. Whereas some people are not put off by technical flukes, Jack seems to have little patience for them. So he will quickly ask for help, but in a way that lacks tact, and also in a way that can provoke the ire of an admin.

Myra, when he has asked for help or explanations, he has not believed the answers, and usually spins the whole thing into a plot against him.

...

I recognize that does sometimes happen Greg.

...

John>"It has been argued that he is an old man who gets confused and because of his “great work in the past” he should be allowed to post his nonsense."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

How friggen catty. Nasty, uncalled for, counter-productive and catty. Period.

So John, unlike the rest of us, is not free to call it like he sees it?

...

It's one thing to call it as one sees it in regard to someone's behavior or words--something they can control.

It's another thing, a nasty thing, to ridicule someone for their age. Both John and Andy took obvious digs at Jack's age.

I think they were cheap shots. And while they might reflect some understandable frustration, they also expose an agenda of portraying the man as some doddering old fool to be flicked aside.

If we had an admin that was extra patient and kind and willing to give a little personal assistance to one of the most important, revered, and adored JFK researchers of all time, then the technical problems could probably be quickly identified and resolved, and Jack could soon be up and running and--true to form--finding something else to grumble about.

John has been patient. The technical problems have been quickly identified. Solutions have been offered. One example... the message he always complains about when he tries to post. This message indicates he was timed out while writing his post. The problem is, you don't know you've been timed out until you try to send the post. The solution given him was to write his post in a document, then copy and paste it when complete.

...

I see. Well I still think solutions could have been devised, for example a tech FAQ describing common problems, workarounds, etc. But the decision has already been made an announced to keep Jack on moderation, so I don't want to seem like I'm continuing to argue it. I'm just following up on your comments here.

But John was right about one thing, Jack has done great work. And many of us do feel indebted to Jack and beyond that feel tremendous affection for Jack. And I for one, take it personally when this VIP is treated so shabbily. Frankly I do think he has earned VIP treatment on this forum and on every JFK forum. I'm not saying he should be given special treatment out of charity, I'm saying he should be given the special treatment he has earned.

I don't think anyone earns, or warrants special treatment. Respect, certainly. To me, what you suggest should apply sounds neither charitable nor a reward. It sounds like condescension. Why not go whole hog and make him the forum mascot? Trot him out for anniversaries and other special occasions.

...

A more appropriate model would be the tenure system used by universities for their most valued researchers and professors.

Whatever, it's settled.

I understand and accept John's decision, and I'll continue to benefit from Jack's posts on other forums as I benefit from the posts of other researchers here.

My Dear Mr. Tribe,

Thanks so much for paying attention.

Thanks for your splendid misinterpretation of my methodology and intentions vis a vis support of Jack White.

Thanks for characterizing my work with a degree of accuracy unexperienced since the Israelis identified the USS Liberty as an Egyptian man of war.

Thanks for acknowledging what I'm sure you know to be the insignificant oddities within the larger JFK assassination investigation.

Thanks for demonstrating the courage and vision required to accept the possibility of conspiracy in the death of JFK.

Your students are fortunate indeed to be educated by so refined, fair-minded, and disciplined a pedagogue.

What is left to say? Perhaps the immortal words of that great philosopher Billy Bats apply.

Now go home and get your shine box!

Respectfully,

Charles Drago

I genuflect in your direction Charles.

Well so much has been said on this subject by now that even if I can't go back and read all the background skirmishes, I can make some conclusions based on long term observations and recent posts. Bottom line:

This is a boffo forum and I hope it keeps going. But, if it doesn't then the void will quickly be filled and those of us who are dedicated to exposing the truth about what was taken from us, and who took it, will keep pushing forward.

Technical issues are one of the biggest contributing factors in Jack's ongoing forum frustrations, if not the biggest factor. For a variety of reasons mostly beyond the admin's control, the software sometimes acts flakey and makes it harder for some people to post and/or upload pix and/or even stay logged in. Whereas some people are not put off by technical flukes, Jack seems to have little patience for them. So he will quickly ask for help, but in a way that lacks tact, and also in a way that can provoke the ire of an admin.

If we had an admin that was extra patient and kind and willing to give a little personal assistance to one of the most important, revered, and adored JFK researchers of all time, then the technical problems could probably be quickly identified and resolved, and Jack could soon be up and running and--true to form--finding something else to grumble about.

Instead we have admin Andy, who rarely misses an opportunity to humiliate and belittle, and takes particular relish in insulting Jack. He intentionally goads him. And Jack is easy to goad; we all know what the result will be because he is not exactly Mr. Zen. Here's a recent example; but then there's always a recent example:

Andy>"Though I believe he is quite elderly dealing with Jack White is like dealing with a small child."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

Oh yeah, fuel on the fire. And sure 'nuff the result is the usual one. At which time all the trolls (you know who you are)--who target Jack because of his stature and productivity and courage--smell blood and pile on Jack and provoke him to the nuclear level. But they don't seem to get nailed for provoking the guy. Instead the guy gets nailed for being provoked, for being a human, admittedly a hot blooded human but hey, we all have our limits.

We also have a forum owner who does not have time for all this nonsense, and has put much trust in his mods and admin, which is--IMO--totally proper and respectful of his volunteer staff even if I don't agree with all of his staff selections. Whatever, I happen to have a huge and growing appreciation for John, and for his intellect and energy and research and guidance and teaching skills. So it's kind of a shame that he is about to get really pissed at me for what I'm about to say. But oh well stuff happens so here goes. For some reason John has opted to make the following remark about the situation with Jack:

John>"It has been argued that he is an old man who gets confused and because of his “great work in the past” he should be allowed to post his nonsense."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0&start=0

How friggen catty. Nasty, uncalled for, counter-productive and catty. Period.

But John was right about one thing, Jack has done great work. And many of us do feel indebted to Jack and beyond that feel tremendous affection for Jack. And I for one, take it personally when this VIP is treated so shabbily. Frankly I do think he has earned VIP treatment on this forum and on every JFK forum. I'm not saying he should be given special treatment out of charity, I'm saying he should be given the special treatment he has earned.

It would just be so kewl to wake up tomorrow and see that John graciously took Jack off moderation with no strings attached and Jack graciously promised to be more calm in the face of frustration while Andy graciously agreed to be genuinely helpful to Jack in the future when he encounters the inevitable technical problems.

Then we could get back to the issue of those gangsters who killed our last great president.

Fellow members,

I am an advocate for the right to freedom of speech and I, too have been on moderation until I agreed that there were certain lines concerning forum rules that we are not to cross. Many times I will still walk up to the line and look over it, but I try to have enough sense to know when enough is enough. I could go back and find some examples if need be, but as I recall - Jack has gone on to still use swear words and has called people a xxxx and in one post that I seem to recall ... Jack basically said that he wasn't about to not say what he wanted to.

Do I think that the moderation thing goes a little overboard when it comes to how we address another members post - maybe? But at the same time this forum is being used by under-aged students and when it gets to where any of us feel that we are more important than the memory of JFK or rights to the students not to have to read profanities and such that accompanies them, then it is time to start considering starting one's own forum where a person needs to be over 18 to join it....

Bill Miller

I've witnessed Bill Miller exchanging insults with Jack White on internet forums for well over five years. There is probably no one on this forum less qualified to offer an impartial opinion on the reasons for the recent incident which has absolutely nothing to do with Jack's use of profanity. The issue was about something else entirely. Miller's above post is irrelevant to the reasons why Jack White became subject to moderation.

A few months ago I voiced disagreement with Miller's comments about Jack White (saying that it was the type of response that could cause people to lose respect for Bill Miller) and Miller's response was to make a public post indicating that he had personally seen me do something that might cause others to lose respect for me. I had no idea to what he was referring and demanded four or five times that he make the nature of his allegation public. Rather than do so, Miller said that he would send me a private email detailing his charge. Each time Miller was asked to make his allegation clear to readers of the thread he declined to do so saying that I might not want such a thing to be known.

I've never opened that email.

Bill Miller's invocation of the memory of President Kennedy in his judgments of Jack White's conduct on this Forum as if he somehow had more reverence than Jack is simply disgusting. I've seen him use the same tactic on others that disagreed with him.

It's not about President Kennedy's memory, under-age students, or even Jack White. Miller's post seems to be more about him and his ego. His use of the word "I" eight times in an opening paragraph of four sentences indicates that.

Oh, amen.

The only thing I can add to this great post is that I can't understand why anybody would continue to suffer through Miller's posts when there is the capability to put him on "ignore."

I love a good cause as much as the next guy, but it seems from my search and reading that Jack White attempted to post in another sub-forum when he was not logged in and got the standard (if non-specific) error message that generates.

Andy Walker confirmed that in the relevant thread in that sub-forum.

There are more than enough actual issues, and I hope that Jack will post here to confirm that rumors of his moderation have been greatly exaggerated. (And that is a perfectly wicked multi-layered pun cake, leavened with my fondness for Jack.)

Ashton

You may be right, Ashton.

If nothing else, this thread has allowed us to use the word "moderation" and the name "Jack White" in the same sentence.

So let's clear this up, if we can. Is Jack being moderated?

Here's what Jack posted on Rich's forum:

"Researchers here may be interested in knowing that Simkin

has banished me from posting on his forum for protesting

the "moderators". The forum has been taken over by Lamson,

Burton and Colby...all APOLLO PROVOCATEURS. Burton has

been made a moderator. He is associated with the Australian

military and a rabid defender of Apollo.

I am still allowed to read the forum, but if I want to post

anything, I must submit it to moderator Burton for approval

first."

Myra again:

Right now I'll offer to post, on Jack's behalf, anything... ANYTHING he asks me to pass along.

He can PM the "anything" to me on either forum.

Aside from that I'm contemplating how to respond since I haven't yet read the other threads that led to this.

Joseph Backes did a valuable series of reviews of docs released by the ARRB. See the links to his "batches" here:

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_i...h_Issue/fp.html

Thank you Ron!

Still interested in this subject.

I would like to come up with a list of documents, not a complete list but a list of significant ones.

Having read Soerensens "Kennedy", written shortly after the assassination I must say I have immense respect for the man. I know people change et.c. but if Ted is endorsing Obama, I'd take that seriously (unless evidence arise to the contrary).

Obama as an african american President would show signs of the USofA beginning to come of age, and though the deadbeats like supremacists (ie Kennedy's assassins) and other psychpathic elements would have to be dealt with, at least a real opportunity to do so would arise.

All the misegininsts and assorted deadwoood "good ole' boy" leftovers from then would reveal themselves to be dealt with.

A true opportunity for reparations, healing. redemption and moving on into a civilised 21'st century. An opportunity for the true Americans to show their mettle and confront many issues that disgust and has disgusted much of the world for decades.

I have nothing but respect for Sorensen as well.

But the USA comes of age, IMO, when it elects a true progressive as president and then refrains from killing him.

Electing an African-American as president doesn't feel like real progress if they're just a standard issue establishment cheerleader, just as naming an African-American as Secretary of State doesn't indicate real progress when their names are Powell and Rice.

I'm tired of having Obama rammed down my throat by the media while they ignore a demonstrably great candidate like Dennis Kucinich. And I have to wonder why the media is so eager to prop up Obama.

Wow, I'm stunned. I continue to be perplexed about Obama's wide support when he hasn't accomplished much and has taken no courageous stands on issues or bills. Just voted with the herd.

He made one great speech at the Dem convention in 2004 and that's it.

I wonder what Sorensen thought of that speech.

And I wonder who wrote it...

1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11=Texas Oilmen, with #5/Hoover in a strong supporting role.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/23/...robe/index.html

"The Iraqi government will file criminal charges against employees of U.S. security firm Blackwater who are blamed for a gun battle in Baghdad in which civilians were killed, an Iraqi Interior Ministry official said Sunday.

It is unclear how Iraqi courts will attempt to bring the contractors to trial. A July report from the Congressional Research Service said the Iraqi government has no authority over private security firms contracted by the U.S. government.

The Iraqi government claims that as many as 20 civilians were killed by the private contractors, who were guarding a U.S. diplomatic convoy.

Iraqi officials, who claim the shootings were unprovoked, dispute the U.S. claim that the guards were responding to an attack and said on Saturday they had a videotape that showed the Blackwater guards opened fire without provocation.

The incident prompted the Iraqi government to call for Blackwater's expulsion from the country and sparked anger among ordinary Iraqis.

...

Blackwater USA security resumed its normal operations in Iraq on Friday after a hiatus sparked by concerns among Iraqi and U.S. government officials over last weekend's shooting.

Sheikhly said the Iraqi government has allowed Blackwater to again operate in the streets of Iraq, because otherwise U.S. troops would have to be pulled from the field to provide security, creating a security imbalance."

Wow, they're going so far as to stage a kangaroo court.

I wonder which PR company will get the big contract from Blackwater.

I'd like to evaluate the value of the JFK Act & ARRB that came about as a result of Oliver Stone's movie JFK.

I'm looking for:

A--Examples of specific documents/memos/etc that were released as a direct result of the JFK Act/ARRB.

B--Opinions on whether or not the JFK Act/ARRB resulted in disclosures & information researchers consider significant.

Ok so I think the two memos linking George HW Bush to President Kennedy's murder came about as a result of the JFK Act/ARRB. I attached them:

1--Summary: Memo from J. Edgar Hoover to the State Department's Intelligence & Research Bureaeu (INR), dated November 29, 1963 advising of a briefing given by an FBI agent to "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" on 23 November 1963. Obtained from US National Security Archives.

2--Summary: Memo from SAC(?), Houston to SA Graham W. Kitchel, dated November 22, 1963 stating that George H.W. Bush of Zapata offshore oil company reported by "long distance" () that a James Parrott spoke of killing the President in Houston.

Did these memos emerge as a result of the JFK Act/ARRB?

Thx.

Myra

.....when Blackwater men are killed they are NOT listed as US dead and when they kill Iraqis [before this] their was simply no mention, any more than snakes killed crossing the highway. ...

Very good point Peter.

They're just disappeared.

Helps the Big Bad cook the books.