Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
The members of the HSCA:
Well this exercise produced some interesting possibilities. I assume each of these people who is still alive is as upset about the Joannides matter as Blakey is. Depending on one's theology, the deceased members may know the answer to how much the HSCA got right.
Harold Ford, Sr.'s son, Harold, Jr., no longer serves in Congress.
He gave up his House seat in 2006 in connection with an unsuccessful campaign against Bob Corker to succeed Bill Frist in the Senate.
Harold Ford, Jr. is the Director of the Democratic Leadership Conference (Bill Clinton's benefactor organization in 1992), and he is a commentator on Fox News Channel and a Director of Merrill Lynch.
I think that he holds 2 or 3 more positions, but I can't recall them.
Harold Ford, Sr. is a lobbyist in Miami, Fla.
The "Ford" seat that was held by Sr. and Jr. for 30 years is now held by Steve Cohen, a white former State Senator who is much more liberal than Jr.
Cohen may actually be a great candidate for Congressional sponsorship of efforts to re-investigate the assassination of JFK and its cover-up.
My guess is that Jr., who is perhaps more influential now than when he was a member of Congress, would probably oppose the re-investigation of the assassination of JFK and its cover-up as a result of his "centrist" views.
Chris,
I think important to understand that Congress will not and should not re-investigate the assassination of JFK, nor is anyone other than TGratz trying to convince anyone that is the way to go.
As far as Congress goes, the legislative branch of government is responsible for making laws, overseeing them and approving the budget.
If we can convince Congress of anything, they should live up to their responsibilty to oversee the JFK Act, and hold hearings on the issues related to that law - the destruction of records, missing documents and the illegal withholding of documents.
When those oversight hearings on the JFK Act are held, and they will be some day, then they will spark additonal legal actions - that will assit in the eventual solving of the crime.
Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide, but they have an important role to play, and the citizens and the public must convince them to do their job.
Trying to convince them to re-investigate the assassination will get nowhere.
Bill Kelly
You're right.
It would lead to a third cover-up, or a cover up of the HSCA which was itself a cover up of the WC.
So I think a (the?) major goal of an ad should be to pressure congress on the JFK act.
I wonder what the odds are that genuine incriminating and/or edifying documents remain in the archives, unscrubbed and intact.
-
Mr Al Fayed is convinced some of the paparazzi following the couple that night were MI6 agents determined to stop the announcement of the couple’s engagement – and Diana’s pregnancy.
I think that's the very motive.
Kathy
God save the queen!
At all costs...
-
Well I guess he could change his verdict in history if he solved the case.
And he does have this going for him: he is fluent in Spanish.
Oh good, he can say "I have no recollection of that" in two languages.
Four languages if you count his doublespeak.
-
Come on, guys (and gals!), Help me out here.
What about Barry Scheck who is with the Innocence Project and who gained fame (notoriety anyway) in the Simpson case? I think he might be good. What say you?
******************************************************************************
Hi T.G.,
I would suggest whomever is left from the original "Dream Team," along with Mark Lane and Alan Dershowitz. Wouldn't Dershowitz be able to switch gears for a case such as this one?
Your femme Nikita
Mark Lane would be ideal, assuming he's healthy and able and such.
But we can't even get him to post here. And I've tried--written to him via Alex Jones and never heard back.
-
Come on, guys (and gals!), Help me out here.
What about Barry Scheck who is with the Innocence Project and who gained fame (notoriety anyway) in the Simpson case? I think he might be good. What say you?
As admirable as his work with the Innocence Project is Tim, I think he's tainted by the OJ case.
-
Alberto Gonzalez seems to be free at the moment.
:lol: :lol: 
-
Come on, guys (and gals!), Help me out here.
What about Barry Scheck who is with the Innocence Project and who gained fame (notoriety anyway) in the Simpson case? I think he might be good. What say you?
******************************************************************************
Hi T.G.,
I would suggest whomever is left from the original "Dream Team," along with Mark Lane and Alan Dershowitz. Wouldn't Dershowitz be able to switch gears for a case such as this one?
Your femme Nikita
Dershowitz did write a very good book after the 2000 coup that exposed how the supreme court stole the election for Bush:
http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Injustice-Co...2255&sr=8-1
But then he said the results shouldn't be reversed, which makes me a little uncomfortable with him.
-
Bump to keep this near the thread about the newspaper ad...
It pertains to goals of the ad IMO.
-
I would be happy to spring for some money for the ad, but I agree with some of the above ideas re corporate and foundation sponsorship.
It would be quite helpful to have a few people in Congress who would spearhead any re-investigation initiatives.
Someone who has no qualms about mixing things up with the CIA would be particularly suited to the task.
I don't think that most Americans know that a lot of the results of government-sponsored "investigations" into the JFK assassination remain under lock and key or have been lost or destroyed.
What security reason remains, 44 years after the assassination, for not revealing that info?
Whose career will be destroyed at this late juncture (noting that EHH is deceased)?
Someone who is on whatever House and Senate intelligence appropriations committees should be in a position to ask the FBI and CIA these questions, particularly in the upcoming election cycle.
More good points.
This should be done in conjunction with BK's mission IMO:
-
I do not know why these guys choose to dance with you [Len Colby] because they always end up looking bad.
Conveniently ignoring the distaff side that know two left feet when they see them.
It's like the ugly man reassuring his homely date that she's the belle of the ball.
Craig Lamson had the knowledge and experience in photography to refute Jack's claims - that's what got him banned from the DellaRosa site. My being banned came soon after I pointed out that Jack had ran a very carefully edited clip of Jean Hill saying she stepped out into the street, while Jean's Black Op Radio interview clearly stated that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot ever rang out. DellaRosa couldn't have this, but not before having my donation check clear his bank. In fact, Mike ... it seems that you and I have had several discussions over the years pertaining to what went on concerning that forum's so-called policy and how it dealt with those who opposed Jack's alteration claims and I have said nothing here that wasn't representative of the feedback you projected, as well.
As far as that forms archives ... it seems that I recall that the first alleged personal attack launched by anyone came from Jack. It started when I posted a thread called something like 'Jack - I think you may be in error' or words to that effect. If that thread is still archived - read the responses Jack gave and see if you can find a single warning that was issued to Jack concerning the things he had said. My looks may have faded with time, but my memory pertaining to what went on there (DellaRosa's site) is still as good as it ever was.
Bill Miller
Your memory is not as good as you claim. It was Scott Myers who
posted or made available the audio of Jean Hill's 11-22 radio interview.
It was not edited. It was consistent with what she told me many times.
And you are leaving out all the invective and personal attacks by you,
Lamson, Thompson and other banishees.
Jack
And Jack it appears YOU are leaving out all of the invective and personal attacks BY YOU towards all the above mentioned persons. The double standard was alive and well at that walled garden.
I wasn't on Rich's forum at the time. But if things were as they are now, Jack did valuable research that made him a target of hecklers who do no research. Then when the hecklers are banished they whine about double standards. Just an educated guess.
How astute, come back when you have first hand knowlege.
Oh Craig, I've seen more than enough of you and Jack to interpolate.
-
Gee Mike, that was very thoughtful of you to acknowledge Bernice, Myra and myself, as respected members of DellaRosa's forum...
____________
Dixie
*****************************************************************************
...
So, I've managed to make some long-term and lasting friendships over the years from these forums. I've considered myself fortunate to have been able to personally get together with quite a few West Coast collaborators, who've been at the hub of my extended family for almost a decade now. I will finally make the journey to Florida in April. I've got the round-trip ticket, Rich and Shel, in my hot little hand, right now. And, as I've always stated and mean it, to those I've personally bonded with, like Len Osanic, Dix, Bean, Dawnie, Cris Carroll, Barb Junkkarinen, John Geraghty, and the same goes for Billy Kelly, John Judge, Mike Hogan, Myra Bronstein, Charles Drago, Tim Gratz, even Charles Black, and of course, I won't forget Harry Dean. Oh, and Simkin, too. If you're ever in L.A., "Mi Casa, su Casa." And, if you know how to drive a standard shift, 5-speed Ford XLT-Ranger pick-up truck, "Mi Caro, su Caro." But, you'll have to drop me off the work in the morning. It gets 35 to 37 mpg on the open road.
...
That was very nice. Thanks Mike.
And thank you Terry. (I think I'll take out a second mortgage on mi casa!
) -
I do not know why these guys choose to dance with you [Len Colby] because they always end up looking bad.
Conveniently ignoring the distaff side that know two left feet when they see them.
It's like the ugly man reassuring his homely date that she's the belle of the ball.
Craig Lamson had the knowledge and experience in photography to refute Jack's claims - that's what got him banned from the DellaRosa site. My being banned came soon after I pointed out that Jack had ran a very carefully edited clip of Jean Hill saying she stepped out into the street, while Jean's Black Op Radio interview clearly stated that she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot ever rang out. DellaRosa couldn't have this, but not before having my donation check clear his bank. In fact, Mike ... it seems that you and I have had several discussions over the years pertaining to what went on concerning that forum's so-called policy and how it dealt with those who opposed Jack's alteration claims and I have said nothing here that wasn't representative of the feedback you projected, as well.
As far as that forms archives ... it seems that I recall that the first alleged personal attack launched by anyone came from Jack. It started when I posted a thread called something like 'Jack - I think you may be in error' or words to that effect. If that thread is still archived - read the responses Jack gave and see if you can find a single warning that was issued to Jack concerning the things he had said. My looks may have faded with time, but my memory pertaining to what went on there (DellaRosa's site) is still as good as it ever was.
Bill Miller
Your memory is not as good as you claim. It was Scott Myers who
posted or made available the audio of Jean Hill's 11-22 radio interview.
It was not edited. It was consistent with what she told me many times.
And you are leaving out all the invective and personal attacks by you,
Lamson, Thompson and other banishees.
Jack
And Jack it appears YOU are leaving out all of the invective and personal attacks BY YOU towards all the above mentioned persons. The double standard was alive and well at that walled garden.
I wasn't on Rich's forum at the time. But if things were as they are now, Jack did valuable research that made him a target of hecklers who do no research. Then when the hecklers are banished they whine about double standards. Just an educated guess.
-
As for motive, according to a friend of mine who made the three ITV documentaries following Diana’s death (which are very well worth watching) the reasons included concerns by the Defence of the Realm mob that a second de facto royal court would be established in Paris -- and in view of Di’s wide popularity as juxtaposed against Charles ever diminishing popularity, this was seen as a real threat to the “firm.
The fact that Al-Fayed chose the old home of the abdicated King Edward and Mrs Simpson as the new home for Dodi and Di also speaks volumes, I think.
I have few doubts that Di was assassinated and would need to be convinced otherwise. The fact that we are now at the fourth Judge to sit on this inquiry is also very telling, I think. The fact that one of the earlier ones was a benefactor of royal grace and favour accommodation (I seem to recall) also tells us something.
The missing CCTV footage is suggestive, in my view. Odd coincidence, that. Add to this (former SIS officer) Tomlinson’s account of the earlier SIS plan (shelved) to take out Slobodan Milosevic and suspicions are raised. Tomlinson said of the Milosevic plan:
Quote:
The third proposal was to arrange a car `accident' to kill Milosevic, possibly while attending the ICFY (International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia) peace talks in Geneva. Fish proposed using a bright flashing strobe gun to disorientate Milosevic's chauffeur while the cavalcade passed through a tunnel. The advantage of a tunnel crash was that there would be fewer incidental witnesses and a greater chance that the ensuing accident would be fatal.
Unquote
It is also worth looking at the family connections of Diana’s “close friend” Rosa Moncton. The Moncton’s are an old English Catholic family (SMOM) who have a long association with SIS. And curiously, like an old film reprising itself, it was a former Moncton – in this case Walter Moncton – who was a “close friend” of King Edward and helped him through his “abdication”. In fact, he drafted the statement of abdication.
Curious, no.
Meanwhile, Anthony Moncton, of SIS, was stationed in Zagreb in 1996. He was “outed” by Richard Tomlinson. Which is also curious when one thinks of the geography of it all a la the Slobodan Milosevic kill plan.
Then there is John Moncton, recently murdered banker. Same family. Maybe coincidental but based on the news coverage at the time I have my doubts...
Then there is Maj Gen Viscount Moncton late of the private Defence Systems Limited (and a former Grand ballif of SMOM). As I have shown elsewhere, DSL was part of the “Palace Group” (named after Buck House) of companies that does things for the intelligence sevices – and starts wars in Africa. Executive Outcomes, Sandline and all the rest of them thar naughty boys are a part of the Palace group.
Altogether, I think we have a nice little conspiracy theory with teeth.
David
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.
-
Back to the motive (I'm all over the place tonight), I read some online remarks opining that Diana was the biggest threat to the British monarchy since Oliver Cromwell. Strong statement. Don't know if it's true, but she was a very big threat I think.
I agree with that statement. Diana was indeed a threat to the monarchy. It's a wonder it wasn't permanently destroyed when Diana died. If the Queen had not lowered the flag on BP (finally) and allowed a public funeral for Diana, I believe it might have been.
Diana exposed the reality of life with the royals in (to some) excruciating detail. She drew a line in the sand with her tv interview. She took up causes such as leprosy and land mines which the royals wouldn't touch. She did it deliberately.
Diana acted from the heart. That created endless and unforgivable confrontations. Diana was showing them what it meant to be really royal, in spirit and not just in name. Then when she was divorced, they stripped her of her HRH. That was the ultimate indignity from their standpoint. They must have breathed huge sighs of relief at her passing.
In addition, Diana knew how to play to the press. She was the victim. She was the young girl manipulated by those she trusted into a diabolical marriage where Charles loved another woman who wasn't even pretty. Diana was also a wonderful mother, and everyone loved her for that. So, whatever Diana did and said had far more weight than anything anyone else could muster.
The monarchy has had to become more friendly and 'warm-and-fuzzy' to survive. Too bad that doesn't come from the heart.
Perfectly said Pamela.
When she was dubbed "The People's Princess" the contrast with the official royal family was implicit.
And I think one reason she was stripped of her title was to strip her of her palace bodyguards...
-
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.
-
And from what I've seen Len's posts fall into one of two categories:
1) Demanding citation on every word no matter how casual or irrelevant.
2) Rejecting the citation as insufficiently authoritative.
He could automate his posts to accomplish the same thing.
Once "authoritative" citations are provided he goes invisible. I see no evolution of perspective or incorporation of new information into his framework of beliefs or attempt at meeting of minds or processing of new information.
I just see hectoring, with absolutely no positive contribution to the discussion or research on the given topic.
You've got it just about right!!...... no interest in the subject matter being brought to a resolution....just 'tasking' to annoy, divert, waste one's time and energies, discredit, etc....
Yup.
-
Banning agitators can sometimes work - I've seen it work - but only in individual nuisance case, because more than likely they'll be replaced by others anyway.
I know its hard to just ignore them because they do interrupt the flow of a thread. That's all they have to do, in fact... transfer the focus or just lower the temperature a notch.
But I'm not sure banning would ultimately work. Know thy enemy seems appropriate enough to me.
Besides, I'm in love with Craig and want to marry him and have his children and have them grow up as Republican Catholic zealots too --- and THEN teach them the true value of an outstretched stiff right arm. Kisses Craig.
David
:lol: But I want to marry Craig!
I'm pretty sure we argue so much because we're actually attracted to each other.
-
I am pleased to state that a well known celebrity has agreed to render assistance in raising funds for an advertisement.
I think it is time to ask members how much they would be willing to contribute for the price of an ad.
I think it would be helpful to set up an organization that would allow tax deductibility of contributions for the ad.
There would also be an escrow fund established so contributions would be returned unless enough are received to pay for the ad.
The ad will be straightforward. It will detail why there are "fresh leads" to be investigated, e.g. the Joannides litigation, the new NAA studies, the Gene Wheaton allegations, the possible solution to the Odio incident and what it means, etc. The ad will be low key and not endorse any specific assassination theories since we will need a broad base of support.
Then it will request readers to get involved in a campaign to have a new investigation of these leads, preesumably through a special prosecutor.
A LOT of work needs to be accomplished to: 1) draft the correct ad; 2) raise funds for it; and 3) organize a lobbying campaign to get Congress to act. We might accomplish 1 and 2 but fail to accomplish 3. But IMO we will never accomplish 3 unless we generate a groundswell of public support through the ad.
This may be our last opportunity since witnesses, maybe even conspirators, will continue to die.
****************************************************************************
"I think it is time to ask members how much they would be willing to contribute for the price of an ad."
From what I've observed over the years, the standard form in asking for donations usually reads, or asks in increments of: 5 dollars, 10 dollars, 15 dollars, or 25 dollars, with a box denoting "other," should the donation be for a larger amount [or smaller], depending upon the subscriber's means. I would think 25 dollars might be doable for some folks.
Ter
I think it's close to time.
The willingness to donate might well depend on the content of the ad.
I think we should get an outline of the content nailed down, with our message and goals, then ask about donations.
I'll work on the outline and submit it for input.
I think many of Tim's suggestions in his latest post are very good.
-
I am pleased to state that a well known celebrity has agreed to render assistance in raising funds for an advertisement.
I think it is time to ask members how much they would be willing to contribute for the price of an ad.
I think it would be helpful to set up an organization that would allow tax deductibility of contributions for the ad.
There would also be an escrow fund established so contributions would be returned unless enough are received to pay for the ad.
The ad will be straightforward. It will detail why there are "fresh leads" to be investigated, e.g. the Joannides litigation, the new NAA studies, the Gene Wheaton allegations, the possible solution to the Odio incident and what it means, etc. The ad will be low key and not endorse any specific assassination theories since we will need a broad base of support.
Then it will request readers to get involved in a campaign to have a new investigation of these leads, preesumably through a special prosecutor.
A LOT of work needs to be accomplished to: 1) draft the correct ad; 2) raise funds for it; and 3) organize a lobbying campaign to get Congress to act. We might accomplish 1 and 2 but fail to accomplish 3. But IMO we will never accomplish 3 unless we generate a groundswell of public support through the ad.
This may be our last opportunity since witnesses, maybe even conspirators, will continue to die.
****************************************************************************
"I think it is time to ask members how much they would be willing to contribute for the price of an ad."
From what I've observed over the years, the standard form in asking for donations usually reads, or asks in increments of: 5 dollars, 10 dollars, 15 dollars, or 25 dollars, with a box denoting "other," should the donation be for a larger amount [or smaller], depending upon the subscriber's means. I would think 25 dollars might be doable for some folks.
Ter
I think it's close to time.
The willingness to donate might well depend on the content of the ad.
I think we should get an outline of the content nailed down, with our message and goals, then ask about donations.
I'll work on the outline and submit it for input.
-
C.B. Colby. Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment (Putnam Pub Group, 1966), p. 20.
According to Merriman Smith, “All [agents on the White House Detail of the Secret Service] are crack shots with either hand. Their pistol marksmanship is tested on one of the toughest ranges in the country. The bull’s-eye of their target is about half the size of the one ordinarily used on police and Army ranges. They must qualify with an unusually high score every thirty days, and if any one of them – or any of the White House police, which falls under Secret Service jurisdiction – falls below a certain marksmanship standard, they are transferred. Agents must also qualify periodically firing from moving vehicles. This accounts for the requirement to shoot well with either hand. A right-handed agent might be clinging to a speeding car with that hand and have to shoot with the left.”
Timothy G. Smith (ed.), Merriman Smith's Book of Presidents. A White House Memoir. ( NY: Norton, 1972), p. 226.
Was this standard in effect in 1963 Paul, or was it imposed as a result of what happened in 1963?
Myra,
Judging by the content of the briefing given the Sunday Times' Insight team for its piece, "The Bodyguards...and the broken first commandment," 24 November 1963, p.6, the training outlined by Smith was standard stuff in 1963. According to this piece, "agents of the elite bodyguard are hand-picked," and as part of their bog-standard training, "learn judo," and become proficient with "revolver, sub-machine gun carbine, and riot pistol."
Oh, and they had an axiom drummed into them: "Never look at the President, he's not going to kill himself." They must have forgotten that, too.
Paul
Thanks Paul.
-
Myra,
We cannot be responsible for every post, as we do not read all of them.
On the bottom left of every post is a little button that has an exclamation point and the word "REPORT".
If someone finds a post offensive, he/she should press that button, and that will alert all of the moderators (it sends a PM to all of them and a link to the offending post) and we will then look into it.
Whoever sends it will remain anonymous.
And you know what happens when that "Report" button is hit.
Either every moderator jumps on it or nobody does.
There is no coordination.
I've mentioned this before...
Coordination of a reported post would be easy. All a mod has to do, if they are the first one to respond to a complaint, is post in the mod thread that they are already handling the situation. Then other mods will know it's being handled.
But currently it's chaos.
Regardless, that's a mod issue.
So I'll do as you suggest and report any objectionable post.
And I appreciate that it's anonymous.
Thanks Kathy.
-
...
C.B. Colby. Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment (Putnam Pub Group, 1966), p. 20.
According to Merriman Smith, “All [agents on the White House Detail of the Secret Service] are crack shots with either hand. Their pistol marksmanship is tested on one of the toughest ranges in the country. The bull’s-eye of their target is about half the size of the one ordinarily used on police and Army ranges. They must qualify with an unusually high score every thirty days, and if any one of them – or any of the White House police, which falls under Secret Service jurisdiction – falls below a certain marksmanship standard, they are transferred. Agents must also qualify periodically firing from moving vehicles. This accounts for the requirement to shoot well with either hand. A right-handed agent might be clinging to a speeding car with that hand and have to shoot with the left.”
Timothy G. Smith (ed.), Merriman Smith's Book of Presidents. A White House Memoir. ( NY: Norton, 1972), p. 226.
Was this standard in effect in 1963 Paul, or was it imposed as a result of what happened in 1963?
-
...
I believe Mr. Simkin started this Forum to allow all the freedom to debate, and not be quashed for speaking one's mind. I am 100% behind him on this. For allowing one side to have a venue, and not the other, is not freedom.
...
Kathy
Kathy, it seems like you've just made the case for maintaining an unmoderated forum.
So, please tell me why there are moderators on this forum if what you say is true.
The posting here should be one of position. To attack someone is not debating.
And that had nothing to do with my question.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I appreciate what you do and think the moderators here could be even more active in keeping the forum civil and respectful.
-
...
I believe Mr. Simkin started this Forum to allow all the freedom to debate, and not be quashed for speaking one's mind. I am 100% behind him on this. For allowing one side to have a venue, and not the other, is not freedom.
...
Kathy
Kathy, it seems like you've just made the case for maintaining an unmoderated forum.
So, please tell me why there are moderators on this forum if what you say is true.
:lol: 
PLACING OUR OWN NEWSPAPER AD TO RAISE AWARENESS
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I agree with BK on this:
"If we can convince Congress of anything, they should live up to their responsibilty to oversee the JFK Act, and hold hearings on the issues related to that law - the destruction of records, missing documents and the illegal withholding of documents.
When those oversight hearings on the JFK Act are held, and they will be some day, then they will spark additonal legal actions - that will assit in the eventual solving of the crime.
Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide, but they have an important role to play, and the citizens and the public must convince them to do their job.
Trying to convince them to re-investigate the assassination will get nowhere."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...60&start=60