Myra Bronstein

I don't suppose other pictures of Hecksher have surfaced? Myra, Yes there are other shots of Hecksher. I have some slides of him, Raul Hernandez and a couple of Artime's guys. I have a huge collection of slides covering all variety of subjects that need to be transferred. One day ... James Good to know James. Please keep me in mind once they're transferred. Do you have a waiting list?

Are there any photos of Davidson available?

I don't suppose other pictures of Hecksher have surfaced?

Hiding out with Plumlee? Ha! :lol:

Where is the old thread?

Thanks for the input Pat and Peter(s). The site really is a goldmine. But, of course, Peter I don't consider any one source the gospel.

I stumbled across A.J. Weberman's Coup D'etat in America Database: http://www.ajweberman.com/coupt5.htm I see he's posted a few times on the forum. But I don't see discussion about his website. (Sorry if I missed it.) It seems to have a huge amount of information. well sourced, and what I did read seems to make sense. It would be a fantastic resource if it's well written and researched. Has anyone read through it? If so what do you think?

This sub-thread is continued here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10756

Following the procedure in the constitution and bill of rights is legitimate. The overworld is outside of that scope. Just because they're a reality doesn't mean they're legitimate.

Very intriguing opinion Charles. So much so that I felt it needed its own thread. Yet again I'm torn. I think your premise makes a lot of sense. Plus the Chicago "plot" never felt right to me. First it's a Northern city, i.e., with fewer racists and confederates, i.e., less hate (which is Dallas' primary export--as established by Stephen in the other thread, but I paraphrased). Second it had a Kennedy friendly Mayor, Daley. Third it voted for Kennedy (at least the citizens in graveyards did ). Finally, I seem to recall the patsy was right wing, but I certainly can't name a source for that offhand. And if that's true there goes the blame Castro scenario. (Or does it undermine the argument that invading Cuba was an essential element? Oh let's not go there again.) But flooding the pipelines with rumors of plots to kill President Kennedy could have also backfired and increased security... unless they knew they had the secret service in the bag. And I think it's pretty clear the secret service was in the bag. Supposedly they even had a tentative patsy selected in LA but never used him. I believe I read that in Larry's book. So that would indicate to me that they really were canvasing cities for the hit before they settled on Dallas. And what about Oswald writing those letters about relocating to the DC area? If that was for real then they might have been considering DC at one point. Well, I'm all over the place on this. What do others think?

Er, the legit gov't of the US is supposed to be voted in (with the safety net of the electoral college protecting the ruling class against the election of candidates that are considered unacceptable). President Kennedy was voted in. Maybe with a little vote hijinks in Illinois, but probably just enough to offset any voting hijinks of Nixon's. President Kennedy was the legit head of gov't, the last of that kind.

We'll never get there if we don't once-and-for-all-time eliminate the ridiculous, the far-flung and the historically coincidental. The JFK murder did indeed happen only one way. But there have been so many "we've almost solved it" theories over the years. It's like those Armageddonists - the end of the world is near!! but then the sun comes up the next day. Most of these theories are fascinating but at their center they are dry husks. Well, It's the job of the journalist, historian and independent researcher to at least try to determine the truth and present what happened honestly, even if it is from different perspectives. I think if you eleminate all the theories that try to pin a psychological motive on LHO and accept the fact that whatever happened at Dealey Plaza was a covert operation, and the motive for the murder was elemination, then that discards a big percentage of the bullcrap. When I first started dealing with Ken Rahn he told me to put together an hypothesis that fits what we know about the assassination, but he didn't like my conclusions. To me, it's now pretty simple. The Dealey Plaza operation was originally planned, approved and trained to attack Cuba and maybe even kill Castro and was redirected to JFK, an operation that began at JM/WAVE, and had the tacit knowledge and approval of RFK. This anti-Castro operation was a maritime operation, meaning it involved boats, and Cuban nationals who could be portrayed as either pro-or-anti-Castro, or double-agents, like Cubella or those commandos who were captured by Castro, whose true loyalities are unknown. Now the suspects number in the dozens rather than thousands. I don't know how long it will take to narrow it down even further, but I know what must happen before the whittiling can begin - Congressional Oversight hearings on the JFK Act and the destroyed, missing and still withheld records, positive result of the Morley vs. CIA case, either official ruling or embarrising the CIA to give up what they got, and sitting grand jury to evaluate the evidence. If those things don't happen in the next two years they probably will never happen, or happen to late to make a difference due to attrition of witnesses and suspects. Mark is the one who seems frustrated at not being able to grasp the most significant developments in the case - the exciting state of the research - and where it seems to be going. Rather than help take the research further, it seems Mark wants to be told what others are finding out so he can try to debunk that too. The most significant new research is not on the internet, and for good reason. BK I don't see anything wrong with an informed hypothesis being put forth for debate. That leads to discussion of facts and research, either supportive or debunking, and it's the scientific method. BK, do you think it's critical for researchers to attend the annual JFK assassination forums to stay apprised of significant new research?

You're raising an excellent point. I've been assuming that the perps chose an outside country to muddy the water, introduce laws the average Brit is unaware of, divert suspicion, and just generally increase chaos and therefore the smokescreen. But I'm not knowledgeable enough about French law to point to anything specific that would benefit the plotters. Now you just pointed to a biggie. The problem with an "accident" is that the victim could survive. I wonder how long it took to get Trevor Rees-Jones to the hospital. Will it provide a point of contrast with Diana's treatment, or reinforce the idea that French ambulances are escargot? I'll have to look into that. Myra, I have always believed that the point of Dallas as the assassination ground zero, as opposed to say New York, was simply the amount of hate that existed towards Kennedy there, if LHO, the patsy de jour failed for some reason, multiple others existed, the plotters were in fact almost spoilt for choise. And of course it keeps researchers busy chasing up these multiples. Hence Dallas=hate, Paris=time delay explainable by clinical management? Makes sense Steve. Dallas equates to hate as far as I'm concerned. Though there were supposedly plots in Miami and Chicago that fell through. I think Miami would have fit right into their plans (oh those hot-headed Castro Cubans). But Chicago? The city that won him the election. That one doesn't seem to fit. Anyway, back to Diana, interesting suggestion that Paris was known to have stationary ambulances and the perps factored that in. Very possible. 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.

Why does it look like that guy's hand is photoshopped? I knew someone was going to ask me that. I rubbed a headline off the picture and accidentally rubbed part of the man's finger off. I used the Paint program on my computer to put it back. But the picture otherwise is legitiment. I was trying to show what state Diana was in. Kathy Tried to slip one by us eh Kathy? Tough crowd. Thanks for posting the pix.

I think most people here are aware of one of the earliest books written on the assassination of President Kennedy: "Farewell America," and that the named author was a pseudonym. Supposedly French intelligence was behind the book (possibly with Russian intelligence): http://www.jfk-online.com/farewellcom.html Perhaps it's a tenuous link, but if it's true then French intelligence sure seemed to know a lot about the US coup awfully fast.

Another good one. Very damning stuff. And Yarborough has credibility IMO.

Good segment Gil.

Why does it look like that guy's hand is photoshopped?

You're raising an excellent point. I've been assuming that the perps chose an outside country to muddy the water, introduce laws the average Brit is unaware of, divert suspicion, and just generally increase chaos and therefore the smokescreen. But I'm not knowledgeable enough about French law to point to anything specific that would benefit the plotters. Now you just pointed to a biggie. The problem with an "accident" is that the victim could survive. I wonder how long it took to get Trevor Rees-Jones to the hospital. Will it provide a point of contrast with Diana's treatment, or reinforce the idea that French ambulances are escargot? I'll have to look into that.

This is a case in point where you can even believe that Oswald did it and all eyes still point to the Secret Service behavior. That is very well said Peter.

Is that what you got from it Ron? I got a different read on it. I don't think it's "just the way the French like to do it" when it's a clear case of internal bleeding so time is the critical factor: "Yet The Scotsman has learned that the first medical personnel to reach the scene of the crash realised very quickly that Diana was bleeding internally. A doctor said: "She was sweating and her blood pressure had dropped. She had the external signs of internal haemorrhage." British medical experts say that if this assessment is accurate it is increasingly difficult to understand why Diana was not taken to hospital immediately." If that's just the way the French like to do it then why are the authors of the article still asking why it was done that way? "What is puzzling about the treatment offered to Diana is that she was not hospitalised until her condition had deteriorated to a critical extent." And "No convincing explanation has been offered for the delay." If the authors are buying the explanation that it is just the way the French like to do it then why are they continuing to say there is no convincing explanation? In fact they continue to pursue an explanation throughout the column: "Asked why Diana's arrival at hospital was delayed for so long he said: "I think it took a long time to get her out of the car. I think she was trapped and had to be cut out by the fire brigade. What do the fire brigade say?" The fire brigade refused to confirm any details." But they've already revealed that she was NOT trapped in the car, so that's a lie. Why are those being interviewed continuing to lie about that? And how does one explain the fact that the motorcycle escorts were lost while the ambulance drove at "a snail's pace"? How is that even possible? The article clarified that it was instantly recognized that she was bleeding internally, that in that case it's critical to quickly get her into surgery, instead hours went by and she was (supposedly) allowed to bleed to death, during which "the French interior minister, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, and the police chief, Philippe Massoni, were in a state of panic, fearing the ambulance had disappeared." Why would they be panicked if it wasn't taking longer than expected? The authors continue to hammer away on the same point until the end of the article: "The French authorities are extremely sensitive about the suggestion that the princess should have received hospital treatment earlier than she did. Yesterday, neither the fire brigade nor the ambulance service would comment on suggestions that her move to hospital was delayed for too long. " And they hammer away because, as they stated, they have received "no convincing explanation." That is hardly reassurance that she was not murdered. Quite the opposite.

Much as the American ruling class was being destablized by President Kennedy. Diana have that, and the dead peacenik factor, in common. As is obvious, this was well-informed, shrewd and deeply serious stuff – and entirely forgotten in the wake of Diana’s death, most notably by that obsessive attacker of things even remotely conspiratorial, the Guardian, the very paper in which it had appeared. Paul Good find Paul. It reads like a heavy handed warning to her. I had no idea she was considering a religious conversion. If that's true then I'm starting to see almost as many motives as there were in President Kennedy's murder. The difference being the people who ordered the murder are much more obvious in the case of Diana. Another commonality is the big underlying cover story. With the CIA the cover story is that they're and intelligence agency when in fact they're corporate assassins. With the crown the story is that the royals are just figureheads with no real vestige of power. That is obviously not true, based on the murder of Di and on this article where they make it clear that they will do anything to preserve the monarchy. I keep reading that the Queen is one of the richest women in the country/world (e.g., http://www.kirkbytimes.co.uk/news_items/20...its_april.html). If someone is that rich, and has been for a long long time, they are powerful. They are not just a figurehead or symbol or tourist attraction.

Good one. Perhaps what they really mean behind 'making a killing in the stock market' much of the time. I'm half amused and half convinced you're right.

Hey, lookie here: http://amapedia.amazon.com "Amapedia is a community for sharing information about the products you like the most. Amapedia is the next generation of Amazon.com’s product wiki feature; all of your previous contributions were preserved and now live here. Check out our new features, like advanced search and side-by-side comparisons, or jump to a random article." Either another propaganda tool for the Big Bad, or another way to spread the truth. ... For example, in edit mode: "Create 'Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy'..."

His standard of 'reliable evidence' is the problem, not to mention his predjudices on other things showing under his facade.....some things never change.....even the HSCA mentioned the 'c' word. Maybe we should post on the Widipedia site actual links to real original CIA et al. documents....and when they are removed scream bloody bias and hidden agenda [and backers/censors]. Yes... so many problems are evident in his comments that it's hard to know where to begin. At best he's outed himself as someone with a personal agenda that includes suppression of information that does not conform to the party line, and a person seemingly devoid of integrity. At worst he's outed Wiki (in case there were any remaining doubt) as a website with a political and/or business agenda, a propaganda tool of the regime. I like your idea Peter. I think Wiki is too sinister to ignore.