Myra Bronstein

"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." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10970

"Yes, we found this choice little quote tucked away in a recent New Scientist interview with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. It’s official: “Wikipedia is not controlled by the CIA, Martians, or Elvis.” Jimmy says so. To be fair, he didn’t just come out and make such a bald statement. He was answering a question that implied the CIA had doctored the site to remove links to conspiracy theories about the agency (allegedly) killing President Kennedy." http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/9...C257299000847A2 On edit: Discussion about propaganda on Wiki is continued here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10738

Very good article. Thanks for posting it Steve.

I admit to not be an expert on the physical situation in the tunnel, but generally: -jimmy with seatbelts so they don't work or don't hold, if used. -lure targets through kill zone -target car bugged & radio beacon GPS; and under possible remote control -have the kill zone [tunnel] all set up with lethal obstacles, cameras, diversions, doubles. -clear out normal traffic prior to ambush and slow down follow-up traffic -lanes blocked or bettter -car rigged to be taken over by remote radio control [no control actual driver] -strobe lights to confuse the target car and any others [though they would have been likely held-back by conspirator cars -after accident first responders dressed in costume are conspirators -if Diana and Dodi dead...end of game -if not let them bleed and go slow -if all else fails administer lethal substances in tunnel, ambulance or hospital, as last resort -control of autopsy and media -whisk body away immediately -crocodile tears from appropriate persons -sell stock in landmines you bought before kill And embalm Di immediately so her pregnancy is hidden. Good one.

In fact it's so good I made it the first entry in the new Propagandapedia: http://www.propagandapedia.com/index.html I'm sure there will be no shortage of material.

The same Nelson Bunker Hunt that paid for the "Wanted for Treason" ad that greeted the doomed President Kennedy upon his arrival in Dallas? Yep, that's him. Hunt was one of three who financed that ad. The other two were Edgar Crissey and Harvey Bright. James That's fantastic information James. I never even heard of Crissey and Bright. Thanks... You will find out about Harvey Bright here: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrightH.htm I am sorry I do not have a page on Edgar Crissey. How much have you got on him James? Thanks John.

The same Nelson Bunker Hunt that paid for the "Wanted for Treason" ad that greeted the doomed President Kennedy upon his arrival in Dallas? Yep, that's him. Hunt was one of three who financed that ad. The other two were Edgar Crissey and Harvey Bright. James That's fantastic information James. I never even heard of Crissey and Bright. Thanks...

Does anyone still believe that propaganda about needing the atom bomb to end WW2? Even high ranking military men of the era knew better, as shown in this interview with one: Military man: The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The Press: You mean that, sir? Without the Russians and the atomic bomb? Military man: Yes, with the B-29… The Press: General, why use the atomic bomb? Why did we use it then? Military man: Well, the other people were not convinced… The Press: Had they not surrendered because of the atomic bomb? Military man: The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all. The military man was Curtis LeMay. http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=11405 LeMay knew that the Japanese were done for before the big bombs were dropped 'cause he had already bombed the snot out of them with conventional bombs: "Take, for example, Curtis E. LeMay, the Air Force general who led B-29 bombing of Japanese cities late in the war. LeMay once said, "There are no innocent civilians, so it doesn't bother me so much to be killing innocent bystanders." And he was as good as his word: in one night of fire-bombing Tokyo, he and his men killed 100,000 civilians. So we can be confident that any doubts he had about dropping the atom bomb would not be based on concern for Japanese civilians." So was he crazy? He was a sociopath for sure, but that also describes many of his peers and colleagues and everyone in the massive plot to murder President Kennedy. I guess LeMay was just a man of his time. And Kennedy wasn't.

The same Nelson Bunker Hunt that paid for the "Wanted for Treason" ad that greeted the doomed President Kennedy upon his arrival in Dallas?

This is an excellent article David; thank you for posting it.

Good point Myra, I have added them all to the JFK Index. I have also added the threads on Robert Anderson, Fred Black, George R. Brown, George H. W. Bush, Tommy Corcoran, Irving Davidson, C. Douglas Dillon, Allen Dulles, Patrick Frawley, Paul Lional Helliwell, Fred Korth, John Jay McCloy, Robert McNamara, John McCone, William Pawley, Ted Shackley, John Singlaub, Earl T. Smith. Thanks John!

Let's hope not. I hope you're ready for her response Nathaniel, properly attired with asbestos goggles.

Flag set post.

John, Lately it seems like we've accumulated enough threads on the Military to justify adding that group to the index. There are links for "Military Industrial (Congressional) Complex" but they're quite general. And there is a CIA link. Can we please get one to track the high level military suspects? I'd think the following threads would be part of it, for starters: Operation Northwoods: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4363 (Which is listed elsewhere in the Index but can be cross-referenced.) Edwin Walker: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544 Lyman Lemnitzer: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10692 Curtis LeMay and John F. Kennedy: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10711 And of course American Security Council: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10696 Seems like it should have its own Index entry given the possible significance. Thanks.

They did have that common denominator: President Kennedy damaged or destroyed their careers. At least that's likely how they'd see it.

I believe there is much about Walker's discharge from the U.S. Military that has a certain hollow ring to it; Yes he was definitely prosecuted for treasonous activities while Bobby was AG. but he didn't just terminate every relationship with every military person he ever knew the day he was no longer an "active" member of the US military, I still get irritated when the old story [whether true or false] about Ruby and Oswald being arrested and released before the assassination is mentioned; either it happened or it didn't......Walker mentioned this incident 20 years after it happened, and I for one, still am in the dark as to whether it did or didn't happen. The HSCA didn't seem to address the issue conclusively.....unless it is buried in one of the 500,000 documents that have been de-classified over the last couple of years. Until then....what a pathetic situation..... The real problem with resolving the JFK assassination is that it takes a historian, researcher and somebody with a considerable amount of time and money to wade through the wheat and chaff of doc's allegations and theories, and even if you know what happened, unless you are a high profile person like an established writer or official, you will get the media treatment, but there are some very good researchers who will, I would estimate, never give up....David Talbot is one of them I wonder if there will be a second edition of "Brothers."

Interesting link Peter; thanks.

Lemnitzer and LeMay are prime suspects. If there is a list of the "military brass" at the JFK autopsy "who seemed to be in charge" and "dictating to the autopists", I'd bet they were there. It the operation was a military coup, their hands were unclean...all the JCS. Jack Agreed. Lemnitzer and LeMay are prime suspects. In fact they and the joint chiefs should be looked at as closely as the CIA.

Me thinkust the Tim doth protest to much. LeMay was a cold war lunatic, during his time in the JCS, defcom was CONSTANTLY on red alert, he advocated dropping America's entire nuclear stockpile on the Soviet Union, and doing the same thing to Cuba, he was also one of the main supports/advocates of operation Nortwoods. He christened Kennedy a "no win chief" and an appeaser of Communism. Does this mean he was instumental in the assassination, no, but neither does it earn him a get out of jail free card. I find it entirely reasonable that LeMays troubled relationship with his Chief is examined in light of his well documented enmity towards all things Kennedy. I'll clarify. LeMay is one of many prime suspects, listed them in post #5 of this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=106828

Good to see prime suspect LeMay get the attention he richly deserves. Very good summary. Chillingly, all the joint chiefs approved the plan. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html Correction: retired from the Air Force.

Thanks Mark. I've just recently become convinced of her murder myself. The tipping point was when news emerged that US espionage was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in Paris. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1968664,00.html That hit me right between the eyes because a few people in the forum, Terry for one, emphasized that US and British intelligence are "joined at the hip." I agree with that (in fact I think British espionage largely created the OSS in WW2). So it seems likely that any US spying was done for, or in conjunction with, MI5/MI6. Still I didn't research her death until the later part of this thread. The list of motives I posted was just off the top of my head. Now that I've read up a little I'd mention: -Her campaign against Charles becoming king: "Events had certainly reached a crisis in recent weeks, beginning with Diana's televised confessions on Nov. 20. Not only did she tell of her own bulimia, self-mutilation and adultery, but she also suggested that Charles is ill-suited to be king. She also offered that the monarchy itself could use a bit of a makeover ("more contact with people, more in-depth understanding"). She concluded with the salvo that she wished to be "queen of people's hearts," as well as an ambassador for Britain." http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.c...s=M1ARTM0010555 -And I'd add that the Windsors did not want the Muslim Dodi to be a step father to the king of England. -I think it's entirely possible that the factor that made the US eager to see her dead and willing to participate was her campaign against land mines (documented elsewhere in this thread). It's hard not to notice how often outspoken peaceniks (John Lennon, MLK, RFK, JFK) die a violent death. That sure is a fascinating link you provided Mark. It's like a sneak peak into the plans of the new world order. Here's a noteworthy passage: "In a similar vein, the US insisted on the removal of language urging "parties to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to fully implement their respective obligations." In his letter accompanying the revisions, Ambassador Bolton explained that "[t]he U.S. did not and will not ... become a party to the Ottawa Convention, and that is why the U.S. cannot accept references to the Ottawa Convention." The US certainly has the right to refuse to become a party to the Convention. That being the case, why demand that States that are parties to the Convention not be urged to implement their obligations thereunder? Isn't it bad enough that the US retains the "right" to cause untold civilian casualties with anti-personnel mines? Why interfere with other States' agreement not to cause such casualties?" I guess they're still trying to undo the 'damage' that pesky Diana did to their landmine sales. Yep Mark. That's the "negative template" method used so effectively by Peter Dale Scott. He observes which evidence the Warren Commission and HSCA refused to investigate and assigns it extra significance. I think he and you are on to something with that negative template.

Excellent. I read the book but haven't seen the movie. I wonder how closely the movie follows the book. I also wonder why Mark Lane distances himself from the movie.

"Another powerful motive for murdering Diana was that she had become a loose cannon, politically speaking. Her aggressive campaigning toward the instituting of a ban on the use of land mines and a reduction in armaments sales, was anathema to the major armaments consortiums such as the Carlyle Group, whose stockholders includes the Bush and bin Laden families, Condoleezza Rice and, by proxy purchase, the House of Windsor." http://www.dianaprincessofwales.net/didbri...dianasdeath.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "FEATURE-Decade after Diana campaign, few use landmines 16 Jul 2007 18:04:53 GMT Source: Reuters By Peter Apps LONDON, July 16 (Reuters) - Ten years after the death of Princess Diana and the first global treaty against antipersonnel landmines, experts say only a handful of rebel groups and perhaps one state dare use what has become a pariah weapon. ... "The supply of mines is drying up. I wouldn't say we have won the war but we have won the battles so far. We have to stop people slipping back and we have to get the mines out of the ground." Activists say global opinion was already turning against antipersonnel mines even before Diana, Princess of Wales, began using her fame to draw attention to the issue. But they say her campaigning sped up the process. Diana joined a British Red Cross campaign against landmines in 1997 and before she died visited Angola and Bosnia with landmine charities. ... "Landmine warfare is not over," said one British demining specialist. "They are very effective weapons. They are not as easy to get hold of as they used to be but they are very cheap to produce." http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13920373.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007 #12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines Inter Press Service, August 3, 2005 Title: “After 10-Year Hiatus, Pentagon Eyes New Landmine” Author: Isaac Baker ... The Bush administration plans to resume production of antipersonnel landmine systems in a move that is at odds with both the international community and previous U.S. policy, according to the leading human rights organization, Human Rights Watch (HRW). Nearly every nation has endorsed the goal of a global ban on antipersonnel mines. In 1994 the U.S. called for the “eventual elimination” of all such mines, and in 1996 President Bill Clinton said the U.S. would “seek a worldwide agreement as soon as possible to end the use of all antipersonnel mines.” The U.S. produced its last antipersonnel landmine in 1997. It had been the stated objective of the U.S. government to eventually join the 145 countries signatory to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which bans the use, production, exporting, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines. The Bush administration, however, made an about-face in U.S. antipersonnel landmine policy in February 2004, when it abandoned any plan to join the Mine Ban Treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention. “The United States will not join the Ottawa Convention because its terms would have required us to give up a needed military capability,” the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military announced, summing up the administration’s new policy, “The United States will continue to develop non-persistent anti-personnel and anti-tank landmines.” ... To sidestep international opposition, the Pentagon proposes development of the “Spider” system, ... The U.S. Army spent $135 million between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 to develop Spider and another $11 million has been requested to complete research and development. A total of $390 million is budgeted to produce 1,620 Spider systems and 186,300 munitions. According to budget documents released in February 2005, the Pentagon requested $688 million for research on and $1.08 billion for the production of new landmine systems between fiscal years 2006 and 2011." http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm

Can tell us what headaches she was causing that were big enough for them to want to kill her? Why would the British, French and/or American intel. services get involved? Len, I already answered that very question in post #15, then referenced it again in post #25. If you can't or won't read existing answers to your questions, it makes it difficult to have much of a discussion. But, for your convenience: Then there's this from post #28, another one you somehow overlooked: "Another powerful motive for murdering Diana was that she had become a loose cannon, politically speaking. Her aggressive campaigning toward the instituting of a ban on the use of land mines and a reduction in armaments sales, was anathema to the major armaments consortiums such as the Carlyle Group, whose stockholders includes the Bush and bin Laden families, Condoleezza Rice and, by proxy purchase, the House of Windsor. Until the advent of WWII, land mines had been used to impede the progress of enemy troops, but the introduction of tanks equipped with rotary flails which detonated land mines, provided a safe passage through minefields, thus diminishing their effectiveness. Their principal widespread use at the present time is to kill or maim children to prevent them from becoming future soldiers who might kill their aggressors. Cluster bombs serve a similar purpose, which is why they frequently contain bomblets disguised as toys. At the time of the couple's death, production was scheduled to commence on a movie based upon a screenplay written by Gordon Thomas concerning the abolition of land mines. The executive producer was to have been Diana, with Dodi as producer. The movie was scheduled to star Gene Hackman and Brad Pitt." And I'm not going to source it because I already did that in the afore-mentioned post. 1) I’ve never heard of the site or the author before, can you find a more authoritive source for the above claims? 2) People can have blood alcohol levels high enough to impair their driving without appearing obviously drunk. 3) IIRC he was believed to have had a few drinks at the hotel if that and the above are true did the other bodyguards see him and was he filmed before or after his visit to the bar? 4) The bodyguards as employees of Al Fayed and possibly friends of Paul were hardly disinterested parties. 1) So sourcing isn't enough? It has to be what you subjectively deem authoritative. What do you consider authoritative? Mainstream media? I consider them liars. You seem to like Wiki. I consider them propaganda. As I said, subjective. But you probably consider Time and CNN authoritative: "Family representatives also produced a 26-minute videotape, edited from two hours by the Fayeds, taken by hotel security cameras. It partly shows that, at least when he took off from the hotel, Paul accelerated at a moderate rate." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,138280,00.html " VAN SUSTEREN: Did you notice Henri Paul as being intoxicated that night? WINGFIELD: No, not at all. VAN SUSTEREN: There was nothing unusual about his conduct? WINGFIELD: No. His demeanor was exactly the same as it was during the day. VAN SUSTEREN: What do you make of the fact that the blood alcohol suggests that he was intoxicated? WINGFIELD: I was -- I was stunned when I heard that. And I accept the findings of the judicial inquiry in Paris, but I was stunned because of the way he came across, you know, there was nothing that would have suggested that he'd been drinking." http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/21/lkl.00.html 2) Blood tests can be faked just as autopsy photos can be faked. 3) Your statement/question is not coherent and I have no idea what IIRC is. 4) Jones repeatedly states that Paul didn't look drunk. Trevor Rees-Jones and al Fayed are hardly friends. They've spent years suing each other and sniping. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/667486.stm (I hope the BBC is authoritative enough for you.) IN fact Jones wrote a book--"The Bodyguard's Story"--that infuriated al Fayad: " VAN SUSTEREN: Mohamed al Fayed has attempted to stop this book from being published in England. Why do you think he did that? And failed. REES-JONES: Yes, he failed. It was thrown out. The injunction proceedings were turned down." http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/.../21/lkl.00.html Citation? Oh, right, a parenthetical remark that has nothing to do with Diana, but by all means must have citation and it must be authoritative. Viola: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,920351,00.html We'll stick with Time magazine. 1) Citation? 2) Was David Rosenbaum’s death a plot as well? http://www.justice.org/homepage/lawreporter.aspx 1) "It took nearly two hours to get Princess Diana from the scene of the accident to La Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, only four miles away. ... They also point to the fact that Diana's ambulance passed a few other hospitals along the way, including one reserved for VIPs." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6162121.stm Again, BBC. 2) I don't know or care who David Rosenbaum is. Let's not change the subject. We're discussing Diana. Now Len, Do you find it odd that the ambulance crew took 1 hour & 45 minutes to transport Diana to a hospital 3.8 miles away passing three other hospitals with excellent emergency facilities in the process?

As someone else said in this thread, the first responders were conspirators. I wonder if the ambulance paramedics could be identified by the ER staff. Of course, all eyes were on Diana. Kathy A question back atcha Stephen. Do you find it odd that the ambulance crew took 1 hour & 45 minutes to transport Diana to a hospital 3.8 miles away passing three other hospitals with excellent emergency facilities in the process? Myra, Charles, Peter etc, etc. There is an old saying, "Never go to a gun fight armed with a knife" Here's the deal, I'll go away and do the leg work I should have done before shouting my mouth off. I will attempt to debunk your points one by one, if I am unable to do this I will happily admit so. Steve. Well Stephen, I appreciate your honesty and willingness to actually do some of your own research, in contrast to Len's demands of additional sources that he considers "authoritative"-- a subjective yardstick that only he can judge, and predictably won't judge favorably.