Myra Bronstein

I'm with John and Tim in finding the story of the Dallas flight incredible. And since it was my first impression of him and his attempts to explain dubious aspects of the Dallas saga only made it more incredible, it pretty much undermined his veracity for me. I have a hard time selectively believing somebody, i.e., accepting parts of what they say but not other parts. I also have a hard time believing his belated claim that someone else deleted his past forum posts to make him look bad. I'm curious about the supposed clash with Hemming, wondering if there would be some reason why they would indulge in a little theater there.

dupe

Are you talking about Tosh's daughter here? What kind of strange things?

"Terri" is wrong. "TerrY" is right.

We need John Armstrong on the case.

Charles, In addition to the weight loss issue there is also his height. In the new Vietnam images, he seems to be of average height when from all reports he was well over 6 foot. The images show him standing alongside a Vietnamese gentleman of roughly the same height and tall Vietnamese are somewhat of a rarety. Given that these two men were indeed in excess of 6 foot, that would make the bald guy over 7 foot tall. Maybe I am not factoring in perspectives here and one of the forum's photographic experts can explain, but the discrepancies appear to be considerable. To add another perspective, I showed the Vietnam photos to someone who had worked with Morales and he didn't recognize him but did say that the one snapped in Peru was definitely him. As to the two 'El Indio's', there was a Cuban nicknamed 'El Indio' but I have not been able to find a photograph of him. Onward! James Did he have a 13" head? ... I'm rather curious.

Totally agreed about that Ron. I'll accept Peter's assurance that he still flew. But the age factor makes this scenario even more incredible.

Afhan is not in South America. Wrong continent. BK ************************************************************************** "Hi I am a friend of Tosh's. His brother ask me to post. I do not have all the details, but received word Sunday that he and Tom Walker his co-pilot went down in Afgan Sat. in a freak storm storm. Will give more details when we receive them. The information came from a DEA friend of Tosh's in Houston Texas. Do not know what Tosh was working on but it was said it was a classified "BlackWater " field operation. Thats all we have at this time." I saw where he went down in Afghanistan with his co-pilot Tom Walker, in a freak storm, on Saturday. Where did you see mention of South America, in that post? In the subject line Terry.

This does sound serious then. And I suppose we'll never know much more than we know today. Well, certain song lyrics come to mind right now... Me and Bill there we both come from Georgia Met Hank out in New Mexico We're bound for Duranqo to join Pancho Villa We hear that he's payin' in gold I guess a man's got to do what he's best at Ain't found nothin' better so far Been called mercenaries and men with no country Just soldiers in search of a war And we're bound for the border We're soldiers of fortune And we'll fight for no country but we'll die for good pay Under the flag of of the greenback dollar Or the peso down Mexico way When this war is over might go back to Georgia And settle down quiet some where I'll most likely pack up and head south for Chile Heard tell there's some trouble down there And we're bound for the border We're soldiers of fortune And we'll fight for no country but we'll die for good pay Under the flag of of the greenback dollar Or the peso down Mexico way Mercenary Song Steve Earle

Afhan is not in South America. Wrong continent. BK That's just the kind of mistake Tosh would make. The fact that so many people doubt the veracity of this post says a lot. If he really died (in Afgan, South America...) in the manner stated and some close friend knows him well enough to know he posted some on the forum (but not well enough to know he stopped posting) and also knows his login, then he was working for a monstrous company of mercenaries and criminals and murderers. From CIA to Blackwater. What's in a name? If he didn't really die then this is a despicable (but not uncommon on the internet) stunt, while people are still reeling over the loss of Tim Carroll no less. In fact the timing is rather incredible. It makes me wonder if he got the idea for the (possible) stunt from the thread on Tim. I don't suppose it's possible to get confirmation of this story? What with it being covert and classified and all... Some things never change.

The alleged date of Gordon Campbell's death is what most intrigues me. As I've posted elsewhere previously, though it failed to generate any comments, professional assassination nay-sayer Mel Ayton was first out of the gate in trying to impugn Shane's story. In so doing, he sought out old CIA hands to refute the identifications presented in Shane's piece, including one from Grayston Lynch, who said of Gordon Campbell, in Ayton's words: "the man in the LAPD film footage is not Campbell and that he “…knew Gordon Campbell.” Let's assume that Lynch did know Gordon Campbell, as he presumably must have done. How, then, do we reconcile Lynch's failure to tell Ayton that Campbell had died in '62, and thus couldn't possibly have been at the Ambassador Hotel in '68? Did this key salient fact simply slip Lynch's mind? Or did he not know Campbell had died in '62? Or, did he know it and yet, for reasons about which we can only speculate, refuse to disclose this to Ayton? Or did Campbell not die in '62, which would be suggested by Brad Ayers' contrary assertions, and Lynch's failure to mention this to Ayton? The fact that there are/were two such men named Gordon Campbell only serves to muddy the issue even further. As I've also pointed out elsewhere, one could more easily dismiss Shane's assertions as fantasy speculations were it not for the demonstrable presence of [ex-?] CIA personnel among the LAPD squad responsible for "solving" RFK's assassination, their heavy-handed intimidation of witnesses, and the subsequent disappearance of critical evidence illustrating the likelihood of a second shooter in the kitchen pantry area. Given how these two CIA men seem to have been deliberately inserted into the crime-solving process, and the fashion in which they steered the so-called investigation, it is almost as though they were parachuted into those positions for the express purpose of nullifying the chances for a genuine and comprehensive investigation. And yet, what aim would any of that have served, unless these CIA alumni were inserted for the express purpose of ensuring that CIA's own complicity in the crime remained undetected? Initially, I was predisposed to dismiss Shane's piece, if only because I found it astonishingly counter-intuitive that three key CIA personnel would be at the crime scene. It would have been a highly risky gambit, should their presence have been detected. However, even if we allow that not all three men tentatively identified were CIA, the presence of any one of them at the crime scene is sufficient to raise fresh questions about what he was doing there, and how that led to the subsequent insertion of CIA/LAPD personnel to preclude investigation of that fact. It seems to me that, thanks to Shane and his hard work, we have a clearer knowledge of the two bookends to the event - CIA at the crime scene before the crime occurred and then afterward in charge of the crime's so-called investigation - but what we currently lack is what happened between those bookends. Well there were certainly commonalities between the two brothers' assassinations that indicates the need for technical personnel on site. For example: 12:29 pm on Nov 22, 1963, Dallas -- "Geneva Hine, the only employee in the Depository's second-floor offices, observes the electrical power and telephone system go dead. The Dallas Police radio systems Channel One, reserved for officers participating in the security of the President, is suddenly immobilized." (From "Trauma Room One.") June 5, 1968, immediately after the murder the police radios are immobilized for an extended period of time. (From "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy." I don't have the book in front of me so I can't quote.) So if nothing else there were likely frequency jamming people, and likely the need to oversee those people. I used to think it incredible that CIA big wigs would want to be seen at an assassination site. But I now believe that their arrogance, determination for success, assurance of cover-up & complicity, sense of historical magnitude, and hatred for the Kennedys compelled them to be there.

We know that John. That's why we're acting like children. ******************************************************************* HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! That's what I love about you, Myra. Your dry wit. Good crowd good crowd. Thank you very much. Drive safely.

Where is the article? It was deleted and only the discussion remains. Myra, I think it can be viewed here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=14448 Thank you Mike.

I am sure that this was the case. In 1963 Ben Bradlee sent Jim Truitt to Tokyo in order to become the Japan bureau chief for Newsweek. This of course meant that Mary Meyer's closest friend, Ann Truitt, would be out of the country. We also know that Ben Bradlee was at this time a CIA asset. For example, see Deborah Davis' book on Katharine Graham, for evidence of this. On the evening that Mary Meyer was murdered, Ann Truitt phoned Antoinette (Tony) Bradlee and asked her to go and get the diary. Unfortunately, she told her husband, Ben Bradlee about this. Bradlee later recalled what he did after Truitt's phone-call: "We didn't start looking until the next morning, when Tony and I walked around the corner a few blocks to Mary's house. It was locked, as we had expected, but when we got inside, we found Jim Angleton, and to our complete surprise he told us he, too, was looking for Mary's diary." In 1965 Katharine Graham appointed Bradlee as assistant managing editor of the Washington Post under Alfred Friendly, his former colleague at USIE. Bradlee then recruits Jim Truitt to the Washington Post. However, Bradlee sacks Jim Truitt in 1969. As part of his settlement he took $35,000 on the written condition that he did not write anything for publication about his experiences at the Washington Post that was "in any way derogatory" of the company. It is worth quoting Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great (1979) for an explanation why Jim Truitt went public with his information about the Meyer murder: "It is only a matter of time, Angleton feels, until Bradlee makes a serious mistake, as he eventually does with the publication of Conversations with Kennedy, in which he mentions that Mary Meyer was murdered, but only in a footnote. A former Post editor named James Truitt is enraged at this; according to Truitt, Bradlee has forced him out of the paper in a particularly nasty fashion, with accusations of mental incompetence, and now Truitt decides to get back at Bradlee by revealing to other newspapers his belief that Bradlee's story on the Cord Meyers in Conversations with Kennedy was not the whole story; that Mary Meyer had been Kennedy's lover and that the day of her murder, James Angleton of the CIA searched her apartment and burned her diary." Thank you John. I wonder if the diary was enough of a factor to be a/the motive in her murder.

Where is the article? It was deleted and only the discussion remains.

Wow, I've never seen Walker in anything but still photos. Thanks Gil. I think he was in the thick of things.

Ow. I only knew him thru the forum, and not well at that. I now pay special attention when I'm reading an old thread and see a post from Tim. Remember how David Talbot said he'd go visit Tim? Anyone know if he did?

Can't imagine anyone mistaking you for dainty Jack.

I have asked my informant if I can name Mary Pinchot Meyer's killer on the Forum. I am awaiting his reply. Hello - My name is Peter Janney and I am the person John is referring to. ... Thank you for posting Peter. Your information is much appreciated. Good luck with both of your projects on Mary Meyer. Do you have an opinion on whether or not Leary was a CIA employee/asset? Why do you think Leary waited so many years before revealing his relationship with Mary? Well given the fact that Alsop was a major CIA asset in Operation Mockingbird, that had to have worked against President Kennedy. Any idea why in the world they'd get together at Alsop's house? Even if they didn't know about his CIA links, they had to know he was a widely syndicated journalist. Do you know why she was assassinated? Was it because of her knowledge of Operation Mockingbird from her husband's work in it? Was it because of her relationship with the President? Was the patsy, Ray Crump, selected in advance or was he a patsy of convenience? It was clearly a flimsy frame which indicates lack of planning. I find that odd. Do you think there was any ulterior motive to their selection of a black man as the patsy? Possibly to cause additional racial tension in the civil rights era (as if any more was needed)? Do you know any of Mitchell's other aliases? Any idea why Mitchell is willing to talk? Do you have any reason to doubt his credibility? Is he still alive? Did he say who in the CIA ordered the hit and why? Do you think Cord Meyer was part of it? And what can you tell us about Mary Meyer's infamous diary? Was Mary's assassination timed so that her friend Ann Truitt was gone and therefore unable to retrieve the diary herself? Oh you bet. Thank you again. Myra

Hardly. I am out of attachment space or I would load some view of the elevator. The elevator in the TSBD appears to have been the type with the pullaway gate - hence the shaft would have been accessible from 2-5 if the lift were stopped on 6. Although I requested additional space, I did not receive any. Would someone be willing to post the photos for me? I combined them into one file. - lee I can do that Lee. I assume you're aware that you can free up space by deleting old photos though.

They are not allowed to post but I assume that we get a lot of young people who visit the forum. According to a national survey my website is used by more history students in the UK than any other. My website contains hundreds of links to this forum. This is why I take so much effort to make sure that members do not use abusive language. If members refuse to abide by these rules they will be removed from the forum. Well it's heartening to know that some young'uns are learning real history to dilute the pervasive propaganda.

Oh Charles, this is the best ever post. It should win some kind of "best ever post" award. My guess though is that the point will not be taken, much as humor is almost invariably lost on the target.

We know that John. That's why we're acting like children.

Boffo thread Paul, Cliff, John. Thank you for keeping it going. Debra, power point presentation was truly fascinating. I wish I could have heard the narrative. Do any of you know if President Kennedy, who clearly stated on tape that Harriman was pro-coup thereby at odds with JFK's own policy and directives, had the opportunity to react to Harriman's treachery, either officially or unofficially? I realize he didn't have much time to do so between the two coups: Diem's and his own.

I think most Forum members believe in freedom of speech. That doesn't mean its okay to use the N word on the downtown streets of Dallas, as they did in the sixties. Even the staunchest defender of freedom of speech wouldn't tend to use the F word or the S word in the presence of strangers or people they just met. The real believer in free speech recognizes there is a place and a time for everything. There are plenty of chat rooms and news groups where one can go and listen to or use any language they want to. My language is much saltier with my close friends than it is in a restaurant or grocery store. Even a free society has some forms of protocol. The Education Forum represents an online society, after a fashion. Bottom line, the use of certain language is an insult to the stated aims of the person that makes the JFK Assassination Debate section available to all of us. To me, its about self-respect as well as respect for John Simkin and what he has provided. John has done a remarkable job in allowing members to express themselves freely. The responsibility is a difficult one, and often thankless. He deserves the right to draw a line if he feels it is necessary. I realize that not every one shares my opinion. That's all it is, just an opinion. FWIW I think that's really nicely stated Mike. Free speech doesn't guarantee a forum. I'll add my observation that the non-swearing rule, among others, was implemented a while back. So it seems gratuitously argumentative to start debating a rule every time it's enforced. Furthermore it is possible to express oneself without swearing. ... Ned Flanders does it.