Myra Bronstein

Zing! Nicely said Kathy. FWIW I think you're a great mod.

Right. That's absolutely clinches it. If they had been scapegoated they might have talked.

Regarding your characterization of Kellerman, either of the two is fine with me. But remember Tim, they are your words, not mine. And lawsuits not withstanding, I have not not accused these people of anything. Even being negligent. You keep putting words into my mouth and you are are also intimidating me. Why Tim? Why do you have so much energy for this case and especially when it comes to the Secret Service? When do you have time to make a living? You seem to be on here 24/7. And as far as the your last paragraph: Sticks and Stones, Tim. Sticks and Stones. KIlleI'm accusing. As I said I think Kellerman and Greer were accessories during the fact.

Definitely Ron; the Diana murder instantly comes to mind when considering the possibility of this scenario in Oswald's murder. Hey, when something works they stick with it.

Well I suppose it could explain why Oswald asked for a change of clothes for the transfer and opted to wear a dark sweater. It would make it less obvious that there was no blood. And I've heard this story for a while and don't really know if I believe it. Ultimately it doesn't change the big picture; Oswald was a patsy killed by the real perps. (Assuming he was killed of course...)

I suppose the mods can't win. I lobby them to crack down on the obvious agitators here.

Correct Peter. In legal terms I see them as accessories during the fact. That's pretty dang guilty.

I'm surprised how many references to her (likely/possible...) murder there are in this article: Diana remembered at memorial service By ROBERT BARR, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 31, 10:33 AM ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070831/ap_on_...ana_anniversary LONDON - Princess Diana's family solemnly marked the 10th anniversary of her death Friday, with her younger son eulogizing her as "the best mother in the world." ADVERTISEMENT The bishop of London used his sermon at a memorial service to call for an end to the sniping between Diana's fans and detractors, and a priest who has led an annual remembrance said it may now be time to let go. "To lose a parent so suddenly at such a young age, as others have experienced, is indescribably shocking and sad," Prince Harry said at the memorial service at the Guards' Chapel near Buckingham Palace. "It was an event which changed our lives forever, as it must have done for everyone who lost someone that night," said Harry, who was 12 when Diana died. "But what is far more important to us now and into the future is that we remember our mother as she would wish to be remembered, as she was: fun-loving, generous, down to earth and entirely genuine," he said. Diana's admirers, many of them suspicious of the cause of her death and resentful of Prince Charles, tied bouquets, poems and portraits to the gates of her former home. Friday was a day for broadcasting video snippets of her wedding and funeral, for rehashing the rights and wrongs of her failed marriage. It was one more day for dredging up questions about how Diana came to die in a car crash in Paris with her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, and for the Daily Telegraph to publish an essay explaining "why we were right to weep for Diana." For Harry and his older brother, Prince William, it was a simple tribute to an adored mother. "To us, just two loving children, she was quite simply the best mother in the world," Harry said. "When she was alive, we completely took for granted her unrivaled love of life, laughter, fun and folly. "She was our guardian, friend and protector," Harry said. "She never once allowed her unfaltering love for us to go unspoken or undemonstrated." Harry and William were credited with organizing the noontime service, but Charles was blamed by many for the furor over an invitation to his current wife. Camilla, whom Diana blamed for breaking up her marriage, decided to stay home. That decision followed quickly after the Mail on Sunday published a commentary by Diana's friend, Rosa Monckton, saying the princess would have been "astonished" that Camilla was invited. "Actually, she would have been astonished to learn that her former husband had married his longtime mistress," Monckton wrote. ... "She reached our lives deeply, even in America. She brought life to the palace and warmth, and that's what the monarchy needed," said Arlene Fitch, 54, of Boston. ... Eileen Neathey, 56, of London, recalled a chance encounter with Diana at a hospital, where Neathey's mother was a patient. "I had been up all night and was very upset, and when I bumped into Diana, I burst into tears," said Neathey, outside Kensington Palace. "She put her arm round me and comforted me — that's the way she was." John Loughrey, 52, had painted "Diana" on his forehead and "the truth?" on his cheek. "We must get to the bottom of how she died," he said. ... Mohamed al Fayed, who accused Prince Philip of masterminding a plot to kill Diana and Dodi Fayed, was not on the guest list. He observed his own two minutes of silence at Harrods, his department store, an hour before the memorial service. However, his daughter, Camilla al Fayed, did attend the official service. "There's definitely something more to it than meets the eye, and I think Mr. al Fayed is probably right that the government were involved," said Alison Wormall, 46, who traveled from central England to join the observance at Harrods. In Paris, dozens of emotional visitors came stopped by a gold-colored statue of a flame over the bustling roadway tunnel where Diana died. "I came to pray for her," said artist Francine Reulier, 56, who knelt quietly for several minutes at the base of the statue, which has become a makeshift shrine. "Many of us in France feel a bit guilty for not having protected her," she said, remembering how she awoke to the news of Diana's death on her alarm-clock radio a decade ago. "I still get chills, I still cry about it — the raw horror of it all." A poll commissioned by Channel 4 television in Britain found that 25 percent of the public believes Diana was murdered, but 59 percent thought it was an accident. The telephone poll of 1,016 adults conducted this week had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The royal family, which clearly was caught by surprise by a national tidal wave of grief 10 years ago, had refrained from any public remembrance of the anniversary of the princess' death. This year, however, William and Harry took the lead in organizing the memorial service, as well as a rock concert on Diana's birthday, July 1, which drew 70,000 paying fans.

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?

Thank you, Paul. FYI, one of the most respected and brilliant of the so-called second generation researchers shares your belief regarding the back wound. I'd be fascinated to see his (?) argument. Any chance of posting it? Paul I cannot make the decision to publicize this person's point of view. To be frank, it was expressed to me privately as a hypothesis in need of significant supporting research and analysis. I'd term it more of a "hunch" or intuitive leap. And I wouldn't count on more info any time soon. Sorry ... really. ... Charles Charles, why bring it up if you're not at liberty to share the info?

This is the very thing that originally convinced me the film was tampered with. 313 there's the big bloody blob. By 314 there's no sign of any bloody debris. It should have been visible, dissipating backward for many frames. It's a red flag so to speak. This point has been discussed and pretty much debunked on these thread. The blood would have been dispersed by the bullet. ... Forum discussions don't alter the laws of physics. No way all that blood and brain matter could vaporize in 1/16 of a second.

Thanks Charles. I think you're right.

Oh I see. Thank you for putting it in context. That's what I lacked. My apologies to Len then; wasn't aware of that back story. And Kathy I really appreciate the fact that you work to improve the forum, and make decisions that need to be made in order to do your job. You do a boffo job. Myra

Counter-coup. http://www.geocities.com/countercoup/

I think it's a great idea to try to schedule it so that it disputes the Bug's HBO propaganda (plus HBO is doing a documentary to reinforce the programing). But I'm not sure how much we should refer to the Bug's lies. I say that because I agree with George Lakoff that negating a frame evokes the frame (don't think of an elephant). I don't want to give them more exposure and attention.

Has the HBO special been scheduled Nathaniel?

Care to summarize what you profoundly disagree with Paul?

Very good idea Paul. Let each thread sink or swim based on the strength of the presented evidence and commentary.

This is the very thing that originally convinced me the film was tampered with. 313 there's the big bloody blob. By 314 there's no sign of any bloody debris. It should have been visible, dissipating backward for many frames. It's a red flag so to speak.

Charles, you might find clarifications in the thread devoted to the subject of shots from inside the presidential limo: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10829

Pat, I'm taking into account that you haven't read the entire thread, so it'd be easy for you to miss the fact that the issues have nothing to do with firm beliefs or group think. Firm heartfelt sincere beliefs, presented with facts and evidence, in a civil manner are food for thought and fodder for discussion and totally fine even if they don't concur with my heartfelt beliefs. Len seems to be the antithesis of a sincere believer. If you read post #78 you'll see that I already made that exact point. But you were more eager to weigh in with your opinion than you were to see if your opinion was relevant. Maybe you'll go back and read it now. And while you're playing catch up on post reading you might want to also read Len's smear job on Peter's bio. Then you'll have some insight into the situation, which may come in handy the next time you feel compelled to opine and speechify.

Perhaps you can't even begin to count them because they never happened. Talk about one who shouldn't speak on this topic.....only wish they'd allow a poll of who agrees with your characterization, Mr Politeness. either you are the one uniformed or you were just shining your hob nail boots and ironing your brownshirt....more upon my return Herr Ulman http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...s&pid=77728 Lamson, you hate all but money and authority...I don't even read your posts....to get out of the impending fascism I don't try to convert a fascist....you don't work here or on JFK posts toward anything...you'd just like everyone to be a couch potato, drink their beer, eat their junkfood and watch the TV circus - AND NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY OR Halliburton etc.....if this is all such bull then why are you here?!..I think because you don't think it is bull**** - and you or those who you 'salute' are worried about it.....last you'll get a direct reply from me Herr Lamson. I don't like brown as a color for shirts, nor people who don't try to make the world a better place and who worship the powerful and greed, and don't help those in need and without power....and try to turn those seeking the truth away from the scent. Heil and farewell! http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...s&pid=72225 I invite anyone to read the entire threads. To see that Lamson was calling me Lemming, others repeatedly loosers and baiting everyone. If this forum followed its own rules he would have long ago been reprimanded for his behavior and disregard for most humans, both on and off the Forum. Yes, he got me upset and that was a single not very tasteful post on my part...but look what led to it....and I invite anyone not familiar with Len's techniques to research them as well. Both these persons are actually IMO trying to stir up just the very event we hav here. To provoke - the work of provocateurs. Peter, Kathy has emphasized that they way to handle such antics is to hit the "Report" button and let the mods deal with it. I think I'll follow her advice and hope for good results. If Myra or Peter had bothered to click on the links they'd have seen that the latter's claims are completely false. At no point prior to Peter calling them Nazis had Steve or Craig said anything to him in those threads that could be considered an insult. Both in fact had been very polite. Though Craig MAY have previously insulted Peter on other threads I'm reasonably sure Steve never did. I also am reasonably sure that any insults Craig MAY have previously leveled at him didn't warrant being called a Nazi on another thread. Yes it's true Craig called him "Lemming" but what Peter fails to say is that was AFTER he called Craig a Nazi a very mild response all things considered. So Myra will any criticism of Peter be forthcoming? No. What I personally care about is someone's sincerity and the quality of their research and the openness of their mind and the substance of their debate. I fully expect them to be human and capable of being wound up, frustrated, and emotional. That's very different from being utterly insincere, and only joining threads to hinder discussion while doing nothing to advance genuine research... Len. Report alleged name-calling to the mods, not to me. I.E. Insults are bad when people you disagree with make them but when someone you agree with gratuitously calls another member a Nazi it’s OK? Oh and speaking of “quality of … research” You asked Craig if he could cite any example of Peter calling people Nazis after I’d posted two examples then without even bothering to take a look you took Peter’s word for it that Craig had insulted him first. It appears that by “genuine research” you mean research that indicates conspiracies by the PTB/MIC etc etc and research that indicates otherwise is classified as fake. "Home run"? No, more like a strike. Reread post #78 as many times as necessary for it to sink in.

Touchdown, slam dunk and home run. Somebody get Len some smelling salts.

I wish I shared your optimism here. Look at the US.....while most in US 80-90% [depending on how one asks the question] suspect a conspircy in the JFK Assassination, they have no idea who/what/how/why and only a few have the same feeling about the multitude of other political assassinations that we have endured and fewer still see the connection between them. But, we can hope that someday they will. Many are waiting for it to be 'announced' by some government panel, prestigious newspaper, trusted political figure or the legal system, still retaining trust in these totally discredited institutions. Davids new information only makes the case look more certain - as well as the timing. The tunnel murder plan was obviously an on-the-shelf item, only needed the right tunnel and moment. For those of you in jolly, jolly England, what is the state of investigation there? - I seems there is always 'about to be' one that never happens. Also, what % of the UK public suspect foul play in Diana's death? Peter, based on a very informal and unscientific straw poll I conducted amongst people I know, almost all suspect there was fould play involved in Di's death. From what I see there is a prepoderance of women who hold this view, more so than men. But plenty of those too. I would estimate that there was the same sort of psychological reaction to her death as there was to JFK -- an event I remember well, too. But, of course, that is a long way from it ever being proved. Knowing how the British Establishment works, there will never be an admission or a court case that finds the evidence needed to reach such a conclusion. So, it will just go down in the annals of the mysterious and the unexplained -- and wil be remembered in the same context as, for example, the "suicided" Roberto Calvi, the death of John Paul 1, Aldo Moro and numerous other public figures who stepped out of line or otherwise threatened the established order. David Thanks for that David. Next time you have tea with the Queen or play polo with 'Chuck', tell them the whole world is watching.... I wonder if the young Princes will ever 'catch on' and get angry and speak or act.... I've wondered the same thing. How can they not know the royals killed their mother, and how can they not care?

I wish I shared your optimism here. Look at the US.....while most in US 80-90% [depending on how one asks the question] suspect a conspircy in the JFK Assassination, they have no idea who/what/how/why and only a few have the same feeling about the multitude of other political assassinations that we have endured and fewer still see the connection between them. But, we can hope that someday they will. Many are waiting for it to be 'announced' by some government panel, prestigious newspaper, trusted political figure or the legal system, still retaining trust in these totally discredited institutions. Davids new information... Actually I mentioned that very thing in post #28.