Myra Bronstein

I really appreciate the quality and quantity of discussion on this. The overarching question is whether or not an invasion of Cuba was part of the original plot. I don't even know enough to have an opinion yet. But I'm unconvinced that the capture of Oswald would make it necessary to cancel existing plans to invade Cuba. Granted it was a big snafu, but they could have played the Ruby card with the narrative propaganda that this wholesome apple-pie eating flag-waving American Mr. Ruby was so outraged at the actions of the Castro-coddling commie scum Oswald that he snapped and took the law into his own hands bla bla bla. The plotters and their mockingbird allies could then fan the commie-hating flames and proceed to manipulate the public and congress into a justifiable righteous retaliatory invasion. Again, I'm unconvinced that the capture of Oswald would make it necessary to cancel existing plans to invade Cuba. The plotters were determined, ruthless, and powerful. Why would they so quickly abandon one of two objectives? Unless Johnson, when put in charge of the cover up, simply wouldn't play along with the invasion scenario now that he had what he wanted. But if that were the case I'd think they would have insured that LBJ lose the 1964 election. And clearly he was willing to give the military industrial complex their Vietnam war in return for the crown they handed him. I just don't know...

C'mon. Somebody post the friggin ad! Surely we have members from the NE.

The guy does have a pretty good understanding of the perps IMO. Highlights: "...“President John Fitzgerald Kennedy,” he contends, “was murdered by Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson in a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy that involved the Federal Bureau of Investigations directed by J. Edgar Hoover, the Central Intelligence Agency directed by David Atlee Phillips, the Secret Service, the United States Navy, General Curtis LeMay of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Ford Motor Company [for secretly repairing the bullet damage to the limo), the Dallas Police including Dallas mayor Earle Cabell, big oil of Texas, the Texas political establishment, the mafia, and the anti-Castro Cubans.” ... When asked why he cares so keenly about this issue, why he’s devoted so much time and money to something most people just shrug away with a rueful frown, his normally even-keeled voice rises considerably. “Because it changed the course of history. The last 43 years! There would have been no Vietnam war, where 57,000 Americans died and 300,000 were injured, including my brother. Two million Vietnamese. Nixon wouldn’t have been president. There wouldn’t have been any Bushes. There wouldn’t have been an Iraq War. It’s a matter of integrity. I think the American people, once they learn the truth, will take a big broom and clean house.” ... There were also six VHS volumes of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, an incendiary British documentary series that began airing on A&E in 1988; a DVD of fresh footage from Dallas’s WFAA-TV, called JFK: The Story Behind the Story; and some crumbling, yellowing newspapers, one of them the November 23, 1963 issue of the New York Times, screaming: KENNEDY IS KILLED BY SNIPER AS HE RIDES IN CAR IN DALLAS; JOHNSON SWORN IN ON PLANE. The package contained another issue of the Times, this one dated November 25, 1963, the day after Jack Ruby pumped Lee Harvey Oswald’s stomach with a hot .38 slug. PRESIDENT’S ASSASSIN IS SHOT TO DEATH IN CORRIDOR OF JAIL BY A CITIZEN OF DALLAS: KENNEDY ADMIRER FIRES ONE BULLET, the headline reads. President’s assassin. Not “alleged” assassin, or “accused” assassin. Less than 72 hours after John F. Kennedy was killed, the Times was already sure of its man. Maybe Kuntzler is on to something when he accuses the Gray Lady of whitewashing the truth. ... The assassination, Kuntzler says now, “is the pivotal event of my life.” But it wasn’t until 1991, when a friend sent him a video documentary on the conspiracy theory, that he began studying it in earnest. He bought Crossfire, by assassination theorist Jim Marr. And the first set of The Men Who Killed Kennedy. He spent the next four years buried in evidence. Finally, he says, “I came to two conclusions: Lee Harvey Oswald killed no one — neither Dallas police officer Jefferson Davis Tippit nor President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And that the government had restructured evidence to bring it in line with their version of events.” ... Nearly 40 years later, a friend gave Kuntzler a copy of Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate, the third of a proposed four-volume biography of this very complex politician. “One third of the way through, I realized that Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the assassination,” Kuntzler says plainly. “I learned that he was utterly corrupt. He was always on the take. That he had an overpowering ambition for being president, and he would stop at nothing.” ... THE GAY RIGHT: Clay Shaw (top) and David Ferrie (bottom) allegedly set up Oswald through the CIA. In his 20s, Kuntzler had supported seemingly populist Texas Democrat Lyndon Johnson. He campaigned for him in 1964, heading into the Deep South with stacks of “LBJ for the USA” stickers. Nearly 40 years later, a friend gave Kuntzler a copy of Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate, the third of a proposed four-volume biography of this very complex politician. “One third of the way through, I realized that Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the assassination,” Kuntzler says plainly. “I learned that he was utterly corrupt. He was always on the take. That he had an overpowering ambition for being president, and he would stop at nothing.” Later, Kuntzler tracked down Barr McClellan’s book Blood, Money & Power: How L.B.J. Killed J.F.K. in an Atlanta bookstore, which confirmed his suspicions. The scales dropped from his eyes. The disparate parts of the assassination synthesized into a coherent whole, each actor’s role and motive crystal clear. • LBJ helped put the plot into motion and was apprised of its workings. He “was largely a bystander, but he was a beneficiary.” • J. Edgar Hoover threw in his hat because of Kennedy’s plans to oust him as FBI chief. • The CIA brass was incensed by Kennedy’s plan to scale back the agency to the size envisioned by Harry Truman. • The Texas oil industry was furious about Kennedy’s desire to reduce the lucrative oil-depletion allowance. • The Mafia, who’d helped JFK win the 1960 election, was apoplectic at his brother Robert’s redoubled efforts to smash organized crime as attorney general. • Cuban exiles, still smarting from the Bay of Pigs disaster and being sold out to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, were also mad. That’s not all, says Kuntzler. • Dallas mayor Earle Cabell, whose Brother, Charles, was forced by Kenned to resign as deputy CIA director after the Bay of Pigs, signed off on the last-minute change in the parade route that would bring Kennedy directly into the line of fire. • The upper echelon of the Secret Service was aware of what was going down, and some rank-and-file agents were told to stand down just before the motorcade entered Dealey Plaza. • The Ford Motor Company secretly patched up the limousine, so as to erase evidence of bullets fired from the front. • And Air Force chief of staff Curtis LeMay, who clashed with Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, was reportedly seen smiling and smoking a cigar at the slain president’s hasty autopsy — held at Maryland’s Bethesda Naval Hospital, where documents suggest two different brains may have been examined. Hovering over it all, the theory goes, was the specter of war in Southeast Asia. “Eisenhower warned against the dangers of the military-industrial complex,” Kuntzler says. “War means money. Then and now. The whole military complex was involved. They wanted the war in Vietnam. Kennedy had signed the document, in October of 1963; he was going to pull about 14,000 advisors out.” Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed a patsy, Kuntzler alleges, drawn into the plot as a fall guy. What’s more, he was an FBI and CIA employee ($200 a month) who tried to warn bureau superior James Hosty of the plot 10 days before the assassination. Kuntzler also swears by Dr. Charles Crenshaw’s assertion that newly sworn-in president Lyndon B. Johnson called the operating room of Parkland Hospital after Oswald was mortally wounded, demanding a deathbed confession be extracted from him. ... Kuntzler is adamant that Gerald Posner’s book, the anti-conspiracy Case Closed — which drew some of its material from Posner’s sources inside the CIA — is an agency con job on the American people. And, he says, the New York Times, which “heaped extravagant praise on Posner’s book” but “discredited Oliver Stone’s film [JFK] before it was even released to the public” — is guilty by association. Posner has also written an occasional article for the Times. “It is my theory that [the Times and the Post] are directing conspiracies of silence,” Kuntzler says. The Times knows the truth, but, even 43 years removed, is “scared to death” of the American people learning the true facts about the assassination. ..."

This thread is the continuation of discussion started here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry112229

I don't suppose anyone has a copy of this letter to scan and/or quote for us...? I've tried all day to find a copy locally. Even the libraries don't have it. They just get the Sunday Times. So frustrating... And when someone finds a complete text of this Two Page Ad in Today (July 31, 2007) NYT, please post it on a new and separate thread so this one can get back to discussing Jimmy D and DT's Brothers. Thanks, BK Discussion of 7/31/07 Paul Kuntzler New York Times ad continues here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10609

I don't suppose anyone has a copy of this letter to scan and/or quote for us...? I've tried all day to find a copy locally. Even the libraries don't have it. They just get the Sunday Times. So frustrating...

I especially liked the part where the guy on the bus was going to be in charge of all future prisoner exchanges. Steve Thomas Yeah! That's where it sort of left orbit. It certainly is an interesting and bizarre letter. If true it begs the question: was LHO in (CIA-assigned sheep-dipping) character, or was he showing his colors as a clueless manipulated patsy?

Discussion continued here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10596 on the subject(s) of the original plot (i.e., what would have occurred if Oswald had not been captured alive), and the impact of the Oswald arrest on the original plot.

Ok so it's widely believed that Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive. Obviously this was remedied by sending Ruby to kill Oswald. Aside from having to arrange Oswald's murder, what difference did Oswald's capture make in the way the plot unfolded?

I don't. But Larry Hancock might, based on this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8298

Thanks James. Do you know who is holding it in the photo? Myra, Yes, I do. However, the last thing he would want is his name published in a public forum attaching him to that rifle. James Of course of course. But surely he wouldn't object if you PM'd or emailed the name... (And surely you knew I'd ask. )

Thanks James. Do you know who is holding it in the photo?

I know this is off the point but DCM, sitting (with Hargraves?) with the cap sure looks like Orlando Bosch rather than Felipe Vidal Santiago. At least to me. I realize people tend to believe that he's Santiago based on his appearance in other photos, and his association to Hargraves, but I dunno....

I don't suppose this memo is published somewhere? Do Groden/Livingstone elaborate on the memo and how they discovered it? Was the memo just an FYI to Helms or was he suggesting some kind of action be taken? Is there evidence that Helms replied? Did Karamessines specify what the "CIA business" was that Hunt was on in Dallas on D-day?

Thanks Charles. This is helping a lot. I'm inclined to agree with this hypothesis, albeit with reservations and questions. For one: I would think that the mob, Roselli for example, would have been deceived along with the Cubans into believing that they'd get their capitalist Cuba back after helping the gov't kill the President. Either that or they simply hated JFK enough to help kill him regardless. But the mob's eagerness to reclaim their Cuban businesses seems like an issue with this scenario. Also (I asked this on another thread and it's still hanging out there), do you feel that there was a time when the CIA genuinely wanted to topple Castro? If so then when did they change their policy from wanting to nail Castro to wanting him preserved as the boogeyman close to home? Do you have opinions on these issues/questions? The "only an hypothesis" caveat is still in effect. Just brainstorming here... On edit: And if this hypothesis is true then it seems like the plotters had the cover story ready from the start. But there is the school of thought that the cover story evolved separately from the murder plot, and that contradicts this. I'm not expressing this very well...

Wow, this is fascinating stuff Peter. Thank you. I can't wait to read your book. Can you elaborate on Leary's relationship to the CIA? Was he working with them when he was meeting with Mary?

Thank you Charles. This is an area that confuses me horribly; it's exactly what I wanted to discuss. In 'Deep Politics' Peter Dale Scott spends a lot of time talking about the cover story (Oswald/LN dunnit) versus the justification for the cover story (commies dunnit it/we could all die in a mushroom cloud). He doesn't use my terminology; frankly I think he uses confusing terminology so I'm paraphrasing. I hope I'm accurately reflecting his premise; I don't have the book in front of me. So, Charles, it sounds to me like you're describing the same premise Scott described. The Castro/commie dunnit back story told to those not in on the plot, to justify the Oswald cover story. Am I accurately paraphrasing your premise? If so, are you saying that (in your opinion of course) an invasion of Cuba in "retaliation" for JFK's assassination was not part of the original plot? It's just what the Cubans were told would happen to get them to go along and do the wet work(?) So glad you brought this up...

Tosh's boss was Wm Harvey!? The CIA thug who "hated Bobby Kennedy with a purple passion"... The laison between the CIA & mob pal Roselli--a supposed passenger on Tosh's "abort" flight into Dallas...

There are always good guys in war. The problem is that corrupt politicians take advantage of the good will of citizens who desire to protect their country from tyranny. ... So true. Pat Tillman was a very good guy. He was persuaded by the 911/Reichstag episode to give up a lucrative NFL contract to enlist in the supposed effort to smoke bin Laden out of an Afghan cave. Next thing Tillman knew he was in Iraq fighting a whole 'nother war that he quickly realized was "so f***ing illegal" and counseling fellow soldiers to vote against Bush in the election. He was keeping a journal and reading anti-war authors and even had an appointment to meet with Noam Chomsky. (In fact, given what I believe about Noam, I have to wonder if Noam ratted him out to the establishment.) Turns out that Tillman wasn't the superficial GI Joe doll the gov't wanted for propaganda purposes. He was a thoughtful, critical, independent-minded, highly moral man. And he was seeing the big bad truth. And he was famous and willing to speak out and people would listen... Lucky for the gov't that he was killed before he could speak out against them. Even when it turned out that he was killed by "friendly fire" the gov't continued to use him for propaganda purposes. When it was revealed to the public that the friendly fire death was covered up things started to seem really sinister. And now, in the Friday weekly news dump, we find out (only because of the courage and outspokenness and persistence of his mother Mary and brother Kevin) that Pat was executed at very close range with three bullet holes in a neat clean line right into his forehead. So, at best, he was probably fragged. At worst, and most likely IMO, he was assassinated by orders from the gov't he was serving, to prevent him from speaking out against them. The gov't continues to cover up the hit. According to General Wesley Clark, not a loose cannon by any means, the cover-up goes "all the way to the top." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpGK6WidRyo I guess that's why the White House declared executive privilege on the Tillman case. A most unusual step. Then immediately after his murder his journal was burned, along with his clothes and body armor. Also unusual steps. That's how the regime treats good guys. But there are always good guys in war. An endless supply in fact.

Ah, thank you Gary. Very interesting subject to me. Good ol' Linda Mack...

And your opinion is what I wanted. Thank you James. I wanted to make sure I understood the significance of the Johnson rifle. Hi Myra, I found Weberman - Nodule 13 great reading on the aspect of Hall as a patsy (through James' clues and nudges I might add). I think one can make a sound case, staying at the same YMCA as LHO for example, seen travelling with guns etc. I forget the thread at the moment but there is a better discussion here somewhere. Excellent resource! Thank you Gary. Like you, I learned of Hall through James. A very good lead. And I have seen the thread you're referring to.

There were no good guys in the Cold War. The Cold War was a trick played on the American people by the arms manufacturers who were afraid of losing the profits made during the Second World War. John McCone, who was the head of the CIA under JFK played an important role in this strategy. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmccone.htm The War on Terror has replaced the Cold War as a justification for the obscene military budgets of countries like the US and the UK. Since 9/11 BAE Systems, the UK's largest arms company, has announced that it is no longer interested in its civil aviation program (it has sold off its interests to Airbus). In future it will concentrate on military hardware. It says that this market is much more predictable and profitable. Exactly. To paraphrase: "“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.” --- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, to a reporter during the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. To paraphrase again: Scare the people with a boogeyman: commies, terrorists, whatever. So convenient for the corporate fascists that they could associate commies with labor unions, their real enemy. So convenient for the corporate fascists that terrorists reside in countries with oil and poppy plants so the planes delivering arms for the war profiteers don't come back empty.

Please don't stop posting Bernice...

And your opinion is what I wanted. Thank you James. I wanted to make sure I understood the significance of the Johnson rifle.

Furthermore, it seems as though "gunmen" were conspicuous in DP. For example people saw a gunman in the TSBD 6th floor west window, not the Oswald/patsy window. Do you think the plotters were openly displaying the multiple (Castro) gunmen in service of plan A? And, do you think the conspicuous gunmen, intended for DP witnesses to see, were the real shooters? Or were the real shooters less conspicuous? Myra...what I think does not matter. I do not know who ANY of the shooters were. Your opinion is as good as mine. They pulled off the perfect crime, because none of them is identified nearly half a century later. An unsolved mystery. Jack ... Gosh Jack, did you wander in here by mistake while looking for the "Don't bother to investigate JFK assassination" forum? Myra...I decided many years ago that it was futile to try pinning down shooters and locations and names etc. They were hired guns and likely were soon eliminated with extreme prejudice by those manipulating them. I am more interested in the compartmentalized chain of command who pulled their strings. Evidence says there were several shooters in several locations...CONSPIRACY. But the conspirators did not do the shooting themselves...they used surrogates, while they remained safely undercover. So, no, I do not care about the shooters' names unless that will lead to their bosses. Long ago I decided the bosses who commanded the killers were people like Hunt, Phillips, Lansdale and Conein...and way above them were people like Dulles, Hoover and Johnson...and above them people in the shadow government. It is these people who killed JFK, but none of them pulled a trigger. Jack Totally agree with your points Jack, and like your quote Tim. Though if you go back and look at my original questions Jack I wasn't trying to name shooters. I was trying to find out if the following evidence supports the theory that framing Castro was plan A (which was discarded when Oswald was captured alive): -Multiple conspicuous "shooters" (or what appeared to be shooters) in DP, -Multiple high powered rifles stashed around DP (of which the Johnson rifle was one), -Multiple patsies.