Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
KIlleAlthough we may think most of it planted or faked, there is indeed a LOT of evidence pointing to Oswald. But a Kellerman suit against yiou would be a slam dunk since you have not a scintilla of evidence to demonstrate that his inaction for less than ten seconds was anything other than negligence or cowardice.I can assure you that even a DA who could cause a jury to indict a ham sandwich (without ham!) could NEVER get a grand With the way you measure time, not only did Oswald have time to get from the sixth floor to the second floor before Truly and Baker spotted him, he probably had time to get to his rooming house before Truly and Baker made it to the second floor!
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.
I'm accusing.
As I said I think Kellerman and Greer were accessories during the fact.
-
Faking the shooting would certainly make sense in that there was no guarantee that Ruby could administer a fatal shot. Nothing outlandish about planning to kill Oswald in the ambulance. (The "treatment" of Diana in that Paris ambulance, moving about as slow as the limo on Elm, comes to mind, as well as the apparent shooting of Rabin after he was "safely" in his car.) But I agree with Peter that it depends on what we know about who was in the ambulance and about the wound angle.
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.
-
Photographer Who Snapped
Infamous Oswald Photo
Said 'No Blood At Crime Scene'
By Greg Szymanski
Arctic Beacon.com
10-19-6
Bob Jackson, former photographer for the Dallas Tiimes Herald who
captured on film Ruby shooting Oswald, reveals for the first time on
American radio he didn't see a speck of blood on the body or at the
crime scene.
For those JFK assassination researchers and truth seekers, a startling
revelation was made on American radio Thursday, as Bob Jackson,
former Dallas Times Herald photographer, made public for the first
time that there was "not a speck of blood anywhere" on the body or at
the crime scene when Jack Ruby supposedly shot and killed Lee
Harvey Oswald.
Jackson was on assignment for the Dallas paper on the morning of
Nov. 24, 1963, when Oswald was being transferred from his holding
cell and snapped the picture "seen around the world," a Pulitzer Prize
winning photo of Oswald grimacing with Jack Ruby fully visible with
pistol in hand, shooting Oswald.
After 43 years, Jackson told listeners of Greg Szymanski's radio show,
The Investigative Journal, he witnessed no blood on Oswald after the
shooting, as well as "not a speck of blood" at the crime scene leading all
the way to when Oswald was put in the ambulance.
"I sure did think it was strange not to see any blood whatsoever," said
Jackson, whose award-winning photo was later published first on the
Times Herald front page and then in the Saturday Evening Post.
"I stayed on the scene well after Oswald was taken away in the
ambulance and I never did see any blood, not one drop."
Jackson's startling revelation adds fuel to the fire of researchers who
claimed Oswald was never shot by Ruby, but later killed by CIA
operatives in the ambulance after Oswald was sedated against his will.
Jackson's testimony, never before released in the American media,
backs up other researchers who claim Oswald and Ruby faked the
shooting as a part of an undercover operation designed to eventually
eliminate Oswald's knowledge of the real JKF assassination team as
well as his part played as the government's patsy.
"Oswald probably was told to fake the shooting and then was double
crossed by Cia operatives who killed him in the ambulance in order to
eliminate any loose ends in the Kennedy assassination," said one
researcher who claims Oswald was used as a patsy.
On the Investigative Journal, Jackson was joined by researcher Brian
David Andersen, a long time JFK truth advocate, who said Jackson's
testimony gives further credibility to the discrepancy to the type and
angle of the wound reported in Oswald's autopsy and the angle of the
gunshot would captured in Jackson's photo taken as Ruby supposedly
fired the pistol into Oswald's chest.
"The bullet should have went straight through Oswald if you look at
Bob's photo, but later the attending physician said the angle of the
bullet was at an upward angle" said Andersen after he questioned
Jackson on the radio show, indicating the possibility that Oswald was
actually shot after he was placed in the ambulance. "The absence of
blood also indicated this to be a real possibility."
Regarding the Kennedy autopsy, Andersen was also privy to inside
information, showing the final doctor's report used by the Warren
Commission was rigged.
"When growing up in Irving, Texas (suburb of Dallas) my neighbor
was Dr. Charles Baxter M.D., the Parkland Hospital coordinating
surgeon on John Kennedy," said Andersen. "On November 23 1974,
while I was photographing a hand surgery being conducted by the
doctor, Baxter explicated and thoroughly detailed all of the events that
occurred related to him regarding the treatment of Kennedy that was
purposely excluded from the Warren Commission Report. The truth
is so more outlandish than any kind of fiction."
In the radio interview, Jackson added that he was also present in the
presidential motorcade ? seven cars behind the lead vehicle - the day
Kennedy was shot, hearing three distinct shots coming from the
direction of the book depository.
"I looked up after the shots and saw a rifle being pulled in from the
window but I couldn't make out who it was," said Jackson . "I also
remember seeing two police officers run right into the book depository
and remember thinking who ever fired the shots never had a chance of
getting out of the building without being caught or killed."
Regarding the Oswald photo seen by tens of millions of people,
Andersen set the scene as it took place in 1963.
"In the basement of the Dallas Police Department on November 24,
1963 were two photographers. Jack Beers pointed a twin-lens reflex
camera while working for the Dallas Morning News and took a
photograph of Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald
"One sixteenth of second after Jack Beer pressed the button on his
camera, Bob Jackson with a 35mm camera and working for the Dallas
Times Herald, pressed the button on his camera.
"Beers immediately returned to the darkroom and processed his
photograph that was instantly sent out on the wire services around the
world. Everyone who witnessed Beer's photograph for the next two
hours stated he would win the Pulitzer Prize.
"HoweverBut...Also...and Hold On!
"The City Desk of the Dallas Times Herald ordered Bob Jackson to
remain in the basement of the Dallas Police Department for over an
hour and half therefore his film was not processed until two hours after
Oswald had been shot.
"After Jackson's picture was printed in the darkroom, Felix McNight,
managing editor of the Times Herald shouted and stomped his feet as
he tried to describe the fantastic photograph to the photo editor of Life
Magazine but to no availthe magazine was under a tight publishing
deadline and the Life editors believed they had the best photo therefore
Beer's photo was published in the most popular American publication
in 1963.
"Bob Jackson's photo was published on the front page of the Times
Herald and in the Saturday Evening Post. Bob Jackson's photo won
the Pulitzer Prize and numerous other awards and his photograph is an
icon of American history. Jack Beer's photo became an almost
forgotten footnote in American History by 1/16 of a second."
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...)
-
Does John Simkin approve the activities of his biased "moderators"?
I know of three locked topics, three threats of banishment, and one
banishment (unannounced).
This forum is getting very oppressive...kinda like the Bush administration.
Next will be torture.
I predict this thread will be locked, since I was previously warned not
to criticize the moderators.
The people WHO SHOULD BE BANISHED continue to post nonsense.
The refugees are fleeing to Rich's forum.
Jack
I suppose the mods can't win.
I lobby them to crack down on the obvious agitators here.
-
Tim Gratz wrote:
If they are innocent (and they are) Greer and Kellerman had each pledged to die in the performance of their duties and they took a job that might well have required them to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Of course they are since they ( and Lee Oswald) have never been tried in a court of law, the proper way to determine such a thing. ( guilt or innocence)
However, United States Secret Service Agents simply DO NOT sit there when shots are being fired at the POTUS. And,
the car carrying said President DOES NOT slow down and stop.
Period.
End of story.
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.
-
I stumbled across this last night re-reading Twyman's Blodddy Treason. Page 545. Amazing!
Twyman states it is from an article (apparently) by the American Security Council dated March 16, 1964, NARA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A political murder instigated by an intelligence service will be planned to approximate the "perfect crime." Every suitable deception and concealment technique will be used. If "imperceptible murder" is not feasible or desirable, one of the following methods is to be used:
a) The assassin is given a cover story or "legend." The assassin, unless he can be reliably hidden, will be destroyed, preferably in such a way that his second murder cannot be traced back to the organizations (for example, he will be slugged by an infuriated cell mate.) c) The assassin will be described as a "loner" and a "psychopath" whose deed was not politically motivated; perhaps he was seeking personal revenge. In many of these undertakings, including the fabrication of "legends" and the manipulation of operatives, the murderer himself may be unaware that he is being maneuvered."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone in contact with Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko who may well have located this at NARA?!
(talk about a 'smoking gun'!).....what kind of paper/article could this have been from?! Please someone near NARA or in contact with Kuhns-Walko help re-locate this....this could be a very important document.
Alternately, if anyone is in contact with Noel Twyman, kindly ask him if he has the full document!
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?
-
Charles,
I believe two shots were fired at Kennedy from within the presidential limousine. The first hit him in the throat, struck his spine, and lodged in a lung. The second entered the left temple and exited from the right rear of his skull. I believe the wound in his back was a post-mortem fabrication. Ditto the entrance wound in the rear of his head. Hope that clarifies.
Paul
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?
-
...
Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11).
The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.
...
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.
-
Damn it! Enough is enough!
Stop this ludicruous exchange. They're winning.
Colby is a waste of time.
Ask yourselves: Who does he influence?
No f***ing one at all!
His mission is not to influence, but to distract.
All he can do is distract you.
Think of all the other ways your energy devoted to this nonsense could have been put to use.
He and his ilk can win only if we concede that they're in the game.
Colby and his ilk are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Peter especially -- Stop it.
All others, too.
Unless, of course, you believe that all the serious work is done.
Charles Drago
Thanks Charles.
I think you're right.
-
Myra,
I would like to take responsibility for Len's posting on Peter's bio. I locked that thread because of a complaint. I assume,not wanting to start a new thread, Len went to the biography section to answer the questions Peter asked. I did not even think about him wanting to respond openly when I locked it.
I believe somewhere Len said he moved it, but the content was only copied. We moderators cannot move posts from the bio section, That can only be done by the administrators.
It is my fault. I'm sorry for all the problems concerned with it. I would like to apologize to both Peter and Len. I certainly meant no ill will.
Kathy Beckett
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
-
...
Ah, thanks for the cheer-up! That must explain the current lack of 'white horses' about. I'm afraid you and Ogelsby are correct.....but there is a 'third force' that happens to be mentioned FIRST in the Constitution...."We the People"....if WE would ONLY stand up and take over our OWN country! By definition it is not a coup....one needs to invent a word for the opposite it would be.
Counter-coup.
-
Don't know, was going to ask that myself. I think probably not yet. Seems a bit early. But I think we need to keep our finger on this pulse. Even if not the add, there needs to be prep work to make a coordinated internet response work.. I am sure that with a little cooperation we could get thousands of new visitors to this site.
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.
-
The thought occured to me that it might be advantageous to have our ad come out on the first night of the HBO special, or around that time.
Then we can raise the more general point about "why no similar access to public airwaves for opposing views, give big names etc" Why is big media scared of a MEDIATED Debate type hook.
Then we can push a book or two, and anounce a kind of "live blog" response going on at Education Forum.
Also a more general contrast between the INCREDIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE given to the once every 13 year lone nut book vs. the near censorhsip of all CT books. Why the unfair playing field? Isn't the media's job to mediate between conflicting views? If so why not a debate? If its so obvious Case Closed then why do they need to protest too much.
Anyway, how does it sound to make the HBO special the point of our attack, in so far as it is typical of the near Corporate bias throughout the years.
I also think some quotes from Barbi Zelizer's book might be useful, because she is a professor of journalism at very prestigious Annenberg School of U. Penn and we need some credentialism near the top of the ad to dispell initial impulse to turn page on presumed lune, which is the general assumption about these one page ads.
Has the HBO special been scheduled Nathaniel?
-
...
To kick-start the thread, I begin, appropriately enough, with the very first sustained written assault on the Z-film’s veracity. It’s only part of the chapter concerned, and contains much with which I profoundly disagree. Yet I remain deeply in its debt. So, too, do many others, as we shall see in future postings:
...
Care to summarize what you profoundly disagree with Paul?
-
The purpose of this thread is to furnish a one-stop shop for those commencing their exploration of the issue: It isn’t to provide yet another pretext for the renewal of old hostilities. To that end, I urge the anti-alterationists to establish an equivalent thread.
...
Very good idea Paul.
Let each thread sink or swim based on the strength of the presented evidence and commentary.
-
...
Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11).
The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.
...
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.
-
I agree, Jack.
But again: All I did was ask for clarification. No flying babies around here.
Signed,
Curious
Charles, you might find clarifications in the thread devoted to the subject of shots from inside the presidential limo:
-
I haven't read every post in this thread, but, by the looks of it, it seems to be another, 'how dare someone not be a true believer" thread. Wow. Aren't there enough of those about Tim Gratz? Why is it that some feel there should be groupthink on the facts surrounding mysterious events? What is gained by that? In the 70s the liberal elite (basically those capable of thinking) gained a near consensus regarding women's rights, gay rights, the wrongness of American imperialism, and the relative harmlessness of Marijuana. This consensus led to "groupthink", where people were told these views were right, but were not given the opportunity to decide for themselves. This led to a backlash, that continues to this day. This backlash spread from the born-again movement, which was left behind, pun intended, by the 60's/70's cultural revolution. It was then exploited for political reasons by the Republican party through talk radio shills such as Rush Limbaugh. These pundits were able to sell those susceptible to nonsense the most ridiculous lies imaginable--under the guise that these lies were the truth denied them by this invisible liberal elite. Perhaps the most ridiculous and cynical, was the lie that cutting taxes on the wealthy would help the middle class. Another whopper was that private corporations are more efficient than the government, and that the public will benefit by privatizing the government.
I have friends with genius IQs who will tell you with a straight face that Bill Clinton was the worst president ever, because he lied to the American people. To him, this makes sense, because to him a hypocrite is worse than a thug or an incompetent. Worse than Nixon. Worse than Bush. This anger towards the hypocritical "Hippies" "FemiNazis" etc. who preached love, but acted with intolerance, is what FUELS the entire Neo-Con movement. It's why we're in Iraq. (The hippies said Vietnam was wrong and doomed for failure--well, let's show them.) It was never a movement of intellectuals or ideas, try as it might, but a movement of REJECTS--people who wanted to be cool and liberal--who wanted to be Alan Alda and Phil Donahue and Warren Beatty, but just couldn't pull it off, and just couldn't understand how an effete liberal GAY snob like Gore Vidal could be right more often than an effete conservative gay-acting snob like William F. Buckley. Many of them were physically ugly and/or awkward. It's not hard to figure out why men like Paul Wolfowitz and Karl Rove were attracted to the Republican Party. The Kennedys, rich and handsome, had become the symbols of the Democrats. There was a "No Ugly Dorks Need Apply" sign on the door to the DNC, so they went over to the other side of the street and hatched the Revenge of the Nerds.
Anyhow, IMO, groupthink is always the enemy, as it almost always leads to a backlash.
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.
-
Oh for gods sakes, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are some of the most vile on this forum and you are calling others out? I can't even begin to count the number of your posts calling members facists, nazis etc, Herr whomever.
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!
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.
-
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.
Touchdown, slam dunk and home run.
Somebody get Len some smelling salts.
-
And ya know what?
The more blatant it becomes that Diana was murdered, the more open people will be to the facts of other high level assassinations. IMO.
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?
-
And ya know what?
The more blatant it becomes that Diana was murdered, the more open people will be to the facts of other high level assassinations. IMO.
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.
-
Oh for gods sakes, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are some of the most vile on this forum and you are calling others out? I can't even begin to count the number of your posts calling members facists, nazis etc, Herr whomever.
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!
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.
Kellerman and Greer
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Myra Bronstein
Right. That's absolutely clinches it.
If they had been scapegoated they might have talked.