Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
Hecksher also used the name Henry Boysen. In addition to what John posted, he had a relationship of some sort with Lucien Conein dating back to the late 1940's but that is a difficult one to track.
I am almost embarrassed to post this image below given the very poor quality. Anyway, it is of Manuel Artime (on the left) and Henry Hecksher.
FWIW.
James
I don't suppose other pictures of Hecksher have surfaced?
-
Where is Hemming?
Hiding out with Plumlee?
Ha!
:lol: -
For those interested in all things LeMay, Lemnitzer JCS. an old thread of mine.
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?
-
Myra,
You -- and so many others -- reference "[supposed] plots in Miami and Chicago".
I'm of the opinion that these rumors were designed to flood the security system with false plots. To cry wolf, if you will.
The purposes: To minimize the impact of any leaks about the real hit in Dallas, and to reassure the president that, as he said all so tragically, "the Secret Service has taken care of everything." Or words to that direct effect.
One plot. One location.
Charles
This sub-thread is continued here:
-
Am I all about semantics, or is there meat to my motion?
The overworld, to use Professor Scott's apt terminology, governs. Albeit from the shadows.
Legitimacy is a sop.
The Kennedys never got it. Until they got it.
Charles
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.
-
Myra,
You -- and so many others -- reference "[supposed] plots in Miami and Chicago".
I'm of the opinion that these rumors were designed to flood the security system with false plots. To cry wolf, if you will.
The purposes: To minimize the impact of any leaks about the real hit in Dallas, and to reassure the president that, as he said all so tragically, "the Secret Service has taken care of everything." Or words to that direct effect.
One plot. One location.
Charles
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?
-
Bill Kelly, in one of his typically thought-provoking recent posts (on the "JFK Assassination Hypothesis, Research Methodology" thread), elicited from me the following propositions:
It was JFK and RFK who hijacked the visible government and threatened the deep political hegemony of the assassination's "responsible parties."
The Kennedys were in the midst of conducting their own de facto coup d'etat against the deep political state -- a self-correcting system that did just that on 11/22/63.
We must have the courage to understand that the government was NOT overthrown when JFK was murdered.
The government was restored.
What we [should be] about is what JFK and RFK were about: its overthrow.
Agreed? How do you define "government" and "coup d'etat" within the context of JFK's murder?
Charles Drago
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.
-
Actually, what happened at Dealey Plaza only happened one way, and the only "theory" that counts is the currect one. Let's figure that out.
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?
-
I'm still far from convinced but......
Lets say the plotters knew about this difference in clinical management of accident victims, it gives them plausible denial on the time delay factor. Making Paris an attractive assassination spot.
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.
-
Here are 2 pictures. One is of the car. The other is Diana in the car. Both photos are here for research purposes only.
Kathy
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.
-
Senator Ralph Yarborough, who was two cars behind JFK, says the "The Secret Service in the car in front of us kinda casually looked around, looked up at the back of them and rather slow to react.."
Another good one.
Very damning stuff.
And Yarborough has credibility IMO.
-
Dallas Morning News reporter Mary Woodward was on Elm St and said that
the limousine "didn't move after that first shot".
Good segment Gil.
-
Here are 2 pictures. One is of the car. The other is Diana in the car. Both photos are here for research purposes only.
Kathy
Why does it look like that guy's hand is photoshopped?
-
I'm still far from convinced but......
Lets say the plotters knew about this difference in clinical management of accident victims, it gives them plausible denial on the time delay factor. Making Paris an attractive assassination spot.
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.
-
Dallas motorcycle officer Bobby Hargis, who rode at the rear of JFK's limo during the Dallas motorcade, says that when the shooting started, limo driver William Greer "slowed down..almost to a stop."
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.
-
Based on the article, it seems very unlikely that the ambulance crew were in on a conspiracy if there was one. It states that the doctors at the hospital were in phone contact with the doctors at the scene from the beginning. If they did not know them personally, I would think that the hospital doctors would sense something wrong if they were talking to imposters.
Apparently what might look to others like gross and deliberate negligence by the ambulance crew in getting Diana to the hospital at a snail's pace is just the way the French like to do it.
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.
-
Myra,
One of the most intriguing and, from Diana’s point of view, ominous, pre-assassination pieces on her appeared in the Guardian’s Outlook section in mid-May 1993.
Jointly attributed to Martin Kettle (a New Labour bootlicker, but a well-connected one), Richard Norton-Taylor (no stranger he to MI6) and Michael White (a political correspondent ever willing & able to discern wisdom in our unelected rulers), it bore the snappy title “Diana may be a loose cannon on the English flagship. But its officers are also feeling the heat. Accustomed to greatness, the English ruling class is being destabilised and it is reacting with venom,” Saturday, 15 May 1993, p.23.
...
Much as the American ruling class was being destablized by President Kennedy. Diana have that, and the dead peacenik factor, in common.
Though making a passing nod in the direction of her utility to Rupert Murdoch’s campaign against the traditional Right in Britain, the article was primarily concerned with Diana’s serious flirtation with conversion to Catholicism. (Her papal pied piper was Dom Henry Wansborough, the Benedictine monk who was master of St. Benet’s Hall, Oxford, and a former housemaster of her “friend” James Gilbey at Ampleforth.) There followed a surprisingly serious consideration of the implications of such a conversion for the Church of England, the Monarchy – and the intelligence services. The most interesting passages in that meditation follow. Ignore the absurd bit about MI5 officers deferring to “no other power” – you can’t become head of either MI5 or MI6 without CIA approval:All of which provides ample justification… for the alleged interest of the security services. MI5’s task is to protect “national security”. This is defined as safeguarding “the state and the community against threats to their survival or well-being”. Conceivably, actions and decisions by individual members of the royal family – even the heir to the throne and certainly his estranged wife – could be seen as just such a threat.Faced with such a problem the response of the security services epitomises many of the tantalising contradictions which run through the culture and institutions of the English ruling-class in this swirling situation. Officers of MI5 – responsible for the “defence of the realm” – say they owe their allegiance to the “Crown”. They defer to no other power. They have used this in the past to justify operations against MPs and ministers and – in the case of Harold Wilson’s Labour administration – the elected government of the day.
They therefore have a double interest in the maintenance of the monarchy. The Crown is their protection. It also embodies and stands at the head of the shared values of the traditional establishment, which includes army officers (some of whom are court officials, while others are apparently in the Prince’s circle of advisers) as well as senior MI5 and MI6 officers.
Yet the workings of this network are labyrinthine. Sir Colin McColl, known as C, for “Chief” of MI6, regularly communicates with the Queen’s private secretary, currently Sir Robin Fellowes, who is also, to complicate things further, Diana’s brother-in-law. MI6 enjoyed a special relationship with the Queen and her Palace advisers. Adverse reports about their behaviour have been included in classified diplomatic telegrams from British missions overseas, concerned about the damage the continuing scandals are inflicting on British “prestige”.
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.
-
...
-sell stock in landmines you bought before kill
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:
"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'..."
-
"Peter Andrews writes:
The Wikipedia entries for politically-sensitive events such as the causes of the WTC collapse and the assassination of JFK parrot the official government positions, despite the fact that in both cases a majority of people around the world seriously doubt these explanations.
For example, the page about JFK's assassination discusses the controversy but all evidence linking the killing to the CIA is missing. It is difficult to believe that nobody in the world is interested in adding this information, so most probably it has been removed by CIA staff. Do you see any need to actively protect these areas of Wikipedia, so that their contents are not so obviously government propaganda? Or do you yourself censor the entries so that they comply with official government policy?
Jimmy Wales replies:
I could tell you but then I would have to kill you, as the old saying goes.
When the cumulative wisdom of thousands of individuals working in complete freedom from points all over the globe in a transparent public system leads to a certain result you don't like, it is probably better to check your premises than to assume that it is the result of a CIA plot. Please.
The truth is that people who are eager to push bizarre theories based on random speculation by lunatics do not generally find a fact-based, open culture of dialogue and debate to be to their liking. I think this is one of the huge benefits of Wikipedia, it allows ordinary people a quick way to rely on a resource where good people have thoughtfully sorted through the noise to arrive at a broad presentation of the truth. Including the truth about what the CIA has done or not done, when reliable evidence supports it.
But to answer your question a bit more directly: no, Wikipedia is not controlled by the CIA, Martians, or Elvis."
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.
-
"Peter Andrews writes:
The Wikipedia entries for politically-sensitive events such as the causes of the WTC collapse and the assassination of JFK parrot the official government positions, despite the fact that in both cases a majority of people around the world seriously doubt these explanations.
For example, the page about JFK's assassination discusses the controversy but all evidence linking the killing to the CIA is missing. It is difficult to believe that nobody in the world is interested in adding this information, so most probably it has been removed by CIA staff. Do you see any need to actively protect these areas of Wikipedia, so that their contents are not so obviously government propaganda? Or do you yourself censor the entries so that they comply with official government policy?
Jimmy Wales replies:
I could tell you but then I would have to kill you, as the old saying goes.
When the cumulative wisdom of thousands of individuals working in complete freedom from points all over the globe in a transparent public system leads to a certain result you don't like, it is probably better to check your premises than to assume that it is the result of a CIA plot. Please.
The truth is that people who are eager to push bizarre theories based on random speculation by lunatics do not generally find a fact-based, open culture of dialogue and debate to be to their liking. I think this is one of the huge benefits of Wikipedia, it allows ordinary people a quick way to rely on a resource where good people have thoughtfully sorted through the noise to arrive at a broad presentation of the truth. Including the truth about what the CIA has done or not done, when reliable evidence supports it.
But to answer your question a bit more directly: no, Wikipedia is not controlled by the CIA, Martians, or Elvis."
:lol:
). 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.)
Irving Davidson
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Are there any photos of Davidson available?