Myra Bronstein

Very good point Peter. They're just disappeared. Helps the Big Bad cook the books.

John, This is fascinating. And very well presented. Sorry if I missed it but I'm confused about something. Who was the 15th person killed in the S-25 Sunderland Mk III crash that killed the Duke of Kent if not Hess? And why wasn't Hess on board if the purpose of the trip was to negotiate with him? Do you think Churchill wanted Hess to be killed in the crash? Also, did they use the flying boat because they had to land at the lake to pick up passengers? I'm unclear on why all those skilled navigators would agree to fly the craft over land given that it was unsuitable for that purpose. Do you know how the aircraft was sabotaged? Thanks. Hi John, I still have the same questions: Who was the 15th person killed in the S-25 Sunderland Mk III crash that killed the Duke of Kent if not Hess? And why wasn't Hess on board if the purpose of the trip was to negotiate with him? Do you think Churchill wanted Hess to be killed in the crash? Also, did they use the flying boat because they had to land at the lake to pick up passengers? I'm unclear on why all those skilled navigators would agree to fly the craft over land given that it was unsuitable for that purpose. Do you know how the aircraft was sabotaged? Interesting stuff. Thanks.

Nice reply Tim. ... - lee The "mob dunnit" is very different from "the mob participated"--Lee. Blakey pretty much claimed the mob did it alone. They didn't do it alone. And that's the point you seem to have missed.

Hi Myra, you're welcome. I'd say that description of Blackwater seems very accurate. Out of interest, is this being covered a lot over there? Here it has got quite a lot of coverage on the main news programmes. It's being covered moderately I'd say Francesca. It's not being reported at length in depth, but it's not being ignored either. Then again if they reported on it extensively it'd become more apparent that Iraq is a largely privatized occupation. It's not something the corporate owned media is eager to spotlight. You say it's getting a lot of coverage there. Are they focusing on the aspect of privatization? And on the fact that by using mercenaries the US bypasses all sorts of pesky laws and regulations and rules of engagement?

George, In 1964 the Warren Commission cover story was that a lone nut dunnit. That failed to convince people so in the late 70's the House Sub Committee on Assassinations tried another cover story: the mob dunnit. I hope you see the relevance to your question.

Good update Francesca; thanks for the link. Somewhere in a posted interview the book author said Blackwater was (I paraphrase) the military industrial complex incarnate. Very true.

Well we really won't know until we try. And given the fact that they're promoting themselves as the un-Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is slanted to the right, there's no place for them to go un-Wiki unless they go left, or go neutral--which is exactly where they claim to be. I ain't lettin' this opportunity slip away. I agree that time will tell, Myra. Neutral would be fine. That's where it should be. Just my cynacism showing is all. That plus my inherent suspicions about promotional spin usually being at a distinct variance with eventaul reality. David And cynicism generally dovetails with reality David. So if this venture ends up being yet another propaganda outlet or time sink then we won't be terribly surprised or caught off guard. I don't mean to come off as some kinda deluded optimist. But there's that slim chance that they are exactly what they advertise. And if so it'd be nice to get in early and write some good ol' neutral fact-based prose, which inherently gives most of us the advantage since we don't have to get all creative like the propagandists. Worst case scenario we get practice at writing things that need to be written and recorded anyway. If our contributions prove to be unwelcome at Citizendium then there's always the forums, websites, books, magazines, carrier pigeons...

Well we really won't know until we try. And given the fact that they're promoting themselves as the un-Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is slanted to the right, there's no place for them to go un-Wiki unless they go left, or go neutral--which is exactly where they claim to be. I ain't lettin' this opportunity slip away.

Excellent news! I hope the Citizendium has some integrity and standards, unlike the Propagandapedia, but I'll wait and see. At least Wiki's richly earned bad reputation is starting to have repercussions. And I agree that we should submit an entry on the assassination of the 35th President of the United States...

Myra, it's self-published, which doesn't say it's bad. Sometimes it's hard to get certain subject matters published. I belong to 2 writer's workshops and they all self-publish like mad -- I don't and won't -- and walk around happy. The books are printed but not edited. Sometimes you can get a decent paperback cover. They give you a small amount of author copies and you have to pay half-price for every other book you want. I've seen novels costing $30 bucks. They don't promote you or your book. I don't even think they pay you. You pay them. I'm talking about Publish America, i Universe, ex libris. Kathy Ah, interesting info Kathy, thank you. I wonder what percentage of books on the assassination of President Kennedy are self-published.

Thanks Gil! This is really useful info. In fact I'd like to see it in the index if John agrees.

Based on the quotes here this book looks like a big ol' smear. http://www.assassinationofjfkin22days.com/...dy_excerpts.htm

"I heard a sound like a balloon popping", she said. "Jack grabbed his throat and said: "I'm hit!" ..." http://www.assassinationofjfkin22days.com/...dy_excerpts.htm I wonder what convinced Dorff to use that iffy "quote." Wasn't it Kellerman that claimed he heard President Kennedy say it?

Good find Mike. Has anyone here read it yet? And here's an interesting link on the author's site: http://www.assassinationofjfkin22days.com/...s_gangsters.htm Is he really listing Sylvia Odio and the Castros as conspirators? Or is that just a poorly arranged page? I hope...

Congressional hearings take sworn testimony. Preliminary hearings in civil cases take sworn testimony. Depositions take sworn testimony. You don't need anybody's permission to take sworn testimony. Why ask for something that you can't get and don't really want because if there is an official investigation, and grand jury, then everything is done in secret and records are withheld. All I want is Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act and all good things will flow from that. BK I agree BK. Congressional oversight hearings on the JFK Act is an achievable goal, and a request so modest that there is no reasonable way for them to refuse. We're just asking for congress to enforce and obey an existing law. When we get our act together with the newspaper ad I think that should be our stated goal. And urge people to write their congress reps. By contrast, it's unlikely we could get another investigation. And if we did it would be a cover up like the other two. At this point they have to cover up their previous cover ups. It's a house of cards.

"By Jen Wainwright Published: 01 September 2007 Newly released documents show that FBI agents spied on the widow of Martin Luther King for several years after he was shot dead in 1968. The documents, which include an intercepted letter written by Coretta Scott King and various memos sent to FBI headquarters, reveal federal agents' fears that Ms Scott King would continue the work of her late husband. That she could try "to tie the anti-Vietnam movement to the civil rights movement" was of particular concern. After tailing her movements for four years, the government closed its file on Coretta Scott King with a statement that "no information has come to the attention of Atlanta which indicates a propensity for violence or affiliation of subversive elements." For those closely connected with Martin Luther King, the leading light of the civil rights movement, the close surveillance of his widow comes as no great shock. The Rev Joseph Lowery, former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (which he co-founded with King in 1957), said: "The FBI kept a microphone everywhere they could where the SCLC was concerned." J Edgar Hoover, the FBI director at the time, "hated Martin Luther King and everything that the SCLC stood for," Mr Lowery added. A lieutenant of King's, Andrew Young, has expressed rather more surprise at the actions of the government agency, saying that Coretta Scott King had "the makings of a saint". "I don't know what they were expecting to find," he said."

And land mines...

That seems a fairly accurate account of what happens. Like Andy I have been on holiday (we did not advertise the fact as that usually results in a "denial of service" attack). As I have fairly strong views on the subjects we discuss, I have tried to withdraw myself from the role of moderator. In my opinion they do a great job. They were selected for this thankless task because of the way they have conducted themselves on the forum. So far, I have had no difficulty in agreeing with the decisions that they have made. John's back! Welcome back.

This article is absurd. "Lunsford says Ruby confessed to her that he helped plan the assassination and stood next Lee Harvey Oswald in the window of the Texas Book Depository while Oswald fired one shot that struck the President in the head." “He did get to talk to Washington correspondent Dorothy Kilgallen, but she died at here desk while writing the story." And so on.

Who is Kerry McCarthy? Please and thank you.

Absurd nonsense. Jack White is an interesting case. He spends half his time here demanding we delete posts and banish members he disagrees with, and the other half complaining about the very gentle and entirely justified moderation of the forum which does occur. He would make a very brutal censor indeed if ever given the chance. I have just returned from an extended holiday. I am pleased to see the forum has been moderated and maintained effectively in my absence. I am extremely disappointed but not suprised however to be faced with so many virtual "reams" of arrant bickering in lieu of something worth reading - heigh ho Welcome back Andy.

*************************************************************************** "Greer is guilty. Guilty of breaking SS protocol. He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop! He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead. Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway? Of course it is natural to think he may of panicked & give him the benefit of the doubt, it's also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compassion in their questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man." There should be nothing "natural" about protecting a chief of state such as the POTUS. Anything "natural" about it, might leave a large margin of error for a likely catastrophe to occur. In this case specifically, men such as Greer were "supposed" to be have been trained, at least on the equivalent level of what SWAT Teams, or DELTA Force teams were trained to do, wouldn't you think? There should have been no quarter for something such as "panic" to have been booked as an excuse for having left the POTUS at risk for having his head blown off, while one slowed to a stop to look over his shoulder. What the hell was Kellerman supposed to be riding shot-gun for, if not the specific purpose of taking in a 360 degree perimeter of everything going on around that limo for a minimum of 100 yards within eye shot. Greer's job was to drive, and peel out of there the minute he even heard so much as a firecracker go off. This should have been instinctual, on his part. He should have been well-trained and well-versed in diversionary tactics, as part of the qualifications required to drive a presidential limousine. Shoulda', woulda', coulda'... Amen sister.

Well... I sure as heck don't think Kenny (Boy) Lay is dead.

Yes, by all means let's stay on this. Tho' the date--March 16, 1964--is after the assassination of President Kennedy. Do you think they were slyly describing what already occurred, or describing the next assassination? I'm not too worried about the date. Could be misdated [even on purpose] or originally written earlier and then redated on copy later or many other things....besides there were other assassinations after that. Given the importance John and others have brought forward about theh ASC and its MEMBERSHIP!, this [if it is indeed something they produced at anytime] quite a 'coup' [pun intended] This quote is a quote at the header of a chapter and is not well referenced. It is defined as I presented it...but really need to know if an ASC document or agency report of ASC or other. Almost any which way it is stunning...as an obvious plan to do an assassination and hide it. Further, it bears an uncanny resemblance to a historical assassination - or two. Well if you find out ANYTHING more about this, to help give it context and authentication, please let us know Peter.

I'm glad you've said your piece Peter. 'Cause these threads have to end somewhere. And if everyone demands the last word they simply don't end.