Myra Bronstein

Flag set post.

I'm confused. I think Hargraves is Umbrella Man. Don't let me stop you. Needless to say... I sure do. Photos attached. Many believe DCM was Felipe Vidal Santiago who worked closely with Hargraves. So it'd be logical for them to work closely in Dealey Plaza. It also seems possible that the umbrella could have served as a go/no-go signal for contingency explosives in case the shooters missed. Hargraves, being the explosives expert, was a logical person to make the go/no-go call. I tend to be skeptical of anything the professional murderers and liars at the CIA say. I think that's only logical.

"Damore than began investigating the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer. In an article that appeared in the New York Post Damore claimed that he believed that the Central Intelligence Agency had something to do with the death of Meyer. He pointed out that on the night of the murder James Angleton and Ben Bradlee were in Mary's home looking for her diary. He added: "She (Meyer) had access to the highest levels. She was involved in illegal drug activity. What do you think it would do to the beatification of Kennedy if this woman said, 'It wasn't Camelot, it was Caligula's court'?" Damore also said that a figure close to the CIA had told him that Mary's death had been a professional "hit"." http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdamore.htm John, Do you know if Damore's book has the same JFK-bashing "Caligula's court" slant that the New York Post article seems to have? Do you know when the book was written? Was it long before his "suicide" or around the same time? Is there some way for forum members to see Damore's manuscript and/or get the name of the supposed CIA contract agent who he says did the professional hit? Does anyone have the entire NY Post article?

Excerpt: "Finally, in this regard, I must comment on the book's treatment of JFK and Mary Meyer. I was quite surprised that, as with Sheridan, Talbot swallowed the whole apple on this one. As I have written, (The Assassinations pgs 338-345), any serious chronicler has to be just as careful with this episode as with Judith Exner -- and to his credit, Talbot managed to avoid that disinformation filled land mine. Before criticizing him on this, and before I get smeared by people like Jon Simkin, I want to make a public confession. I actually believed the Meyer nonsense at one time. In fact, to my everlasting chagrin, I discussed it -- Timothy Leary and all -- at a talk I did in San Francisco about a year after Oliver Stone's JFK came out. It wasn't until I began to examine who Leary was, who his associates were, and how he fit into the whole explosion of drugs into the USA in the sixties and seventies that I began to question who he was. In light of this, I then reexamined his Mary Meyer story, and later the whole legerdemain around this fanciful tale. Thankfully, Talbot does not go into the whole overwrought "mystery" about her death and her mythologized diary. But he eagerly buys into everything else. Yet to do this, one has to believe some rather unbelievable people. And you then have to ignore their credibility problems so your more curious readers won't ask any questions. For if they do the whole edifice starts to unravel. Foremost among this motley crew is Leary. As I was the first to note, there is a big problem with his story about Meyer coming to him in 1962 for psychedelic drugs. Namely, he didn't write about it for 21 years previous --until 1983. He wrote about 25 books in the meantime. (Sort of like going through 25 FBI, Secret Service, and DPD interviews before you suddenly recall seeing Oswald on the sixth floor.) Yet it was not until he hooked up with the likes of Gordon Liddy that he suddenly recalled, with vivid memory, supplying Mary with LSD and her mentioning of her high official friend and commenting, "They couldn't control him any more. He was changing too fast" etc. etc. etc. " That's exactly what I was trying to discuss with post #291 here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...9824&st=285 "David, The material in your book about the motivation behind Mary Meyer sharing LSD with President Kennedy was pretty jaw-dropping, certainly a revelation to me. And the entire time I was wondering about Timothy Leary and whether or not he was CIA. If Leary was CIA then Meyer, presumably inadvertently, played right into the CIA's hands by giving them one more thing to use against JFK and/or one more reason to hate JFK. (Actually you make the case that the episode(s) hurt him anyway since the CIA was aware of them.) Do you think Leary was CIA? Did you find any evidence that he was CIA? Thanks. Myra" It was never answered. So, does anyone have any insights into Mr. Leary that may help clarify?

I learn more from DiEugenio's reviews than I do from most books. Thanks for posting this Ron. Sure wonder what the real story is with Sheridan... He went way beyond merely assessing Garrison's case. So, in sabotaging Garrison was he representing RFK or betraying him? And in any case, why?

I'm confused. I think Hargraves is Umbrella Man.

I think the Federal Reserve angle is a red herring & has nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination. According to The Money Masters by Bill Still (http://tinyurl.com/2reh2s) JFK merely reissued Lincoln's greenbacks in 1963, which was a routine matter. In 1994 the Regal Act was introduced in the US to replace President Lincoln's (US Treasury) Greenbacks with debt based (Federal Reserve) notes. Now they're almost gone. Still gives a talk here (http://tinyurl.com/2uout7) where he emphatically debunks the theory that JFK was trying to bypass the Fed. Of course we have to decide whether or not we believe Still, but I find him and his info credible and consider the Federal Reserve angle a dead end. There was no shortage of people and institutions with motives; this may be one of the few cases where there was none. However, JFK was trying to bypass the World Bank/IMF in giving economic aid to developing nations... (Source: Battling Wall Street.) I consider that very significant.

Then how come he's not shown in "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza (2)" James? I think he was umbrella man too, FWIW. I also think Orlando Bosch was DCM. If you agree then I wonder why he isn't included in FFiDP as well.

It seems widely accepted that Leopoldo is Bernardo De Torres. I don't have a strong opinion about it but he does fit Odio's description. Whereas I've seen Angelo ID'd as both Angel Murgado/Kennedy and Edwin Collins. For example, there even seems to be contradiction within Spartacus (which is unusual): http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtorres.htm "The following day Leopoldo phoned Odio and told her that Leon was a former Marine and that he was an expert marksman. He added that Leon had said “we Cubans, we did not have the guts because we should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs”. It is believed that De Torres was Leopoldo and Edwin Collins was Angelo." http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmurgado.htm "Bernardo de Torres and Murgado visited Sylvia Odio on 25th September, 1963. When they arrived, Lee Harvey Oswald was also in the apartment." What do you all think about Angelo's identity? I'm confused about the prospect of Edwin Collins as Angelo. Wasn't Collins American? And Odio described the two as Latin, probably Mexican. Did Collins have a Latin background? There's a photo of him at the first link and it looks like he could appear to be Mexican or Cuban.

I hope so. Caro is willing to tell the ugly truth about LBJ. It was Bird and Valenti who censored THE GUILTY MEN. I wonder if maybe it has a chance now. Jack And Moyers? Moyers sure is a mystery. Carries the devil's water for years, then becomes Mr PBS Uber Journalist supposedly exposing corruption... All the while fighting to hide his master's crimes. I suppose there's a guilty conscience in there somewhere. But not guilty enough.

I hope so. Caro is willing to tell the ugly truth about LBJ.

She put LBJ's radio station in her name and he used it to launder bribe money. It's hard to imagine she was unaware of this fact, and of her husband's corruption. If she was unaware of all that then she must have been quite oblivious (euphemism).

What a waste. Colbert scored no points. Regardless, Bug just comes off as a crackpot. Thanks for the link Mike.

Don't know about the forum list John, but there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_cryptonym

The whole Kissinger/Helms story that RFK was behind plots to kill Castro was new to me when it recently made news, but then I just read the same story (Intelligence Wars, NYRB, 2004) in a Thomas Powers New York Review of Books from February 4, 1999. Thomas Powers, who of Oswald, in the chapter called The Mind of the Assassin, after reviewing most of his intelligence related activities, writes, "Oswald's Tale brings us right up to the pinch-lipped misery and sour odor of the man. He borught pain to many and happiness to none. Anger is what this makes me feel. It was an insect that brought Kennedy down. Would to God he had popped first beneath somebody's foot." Powers then joins forces with Mad Max Holland and Dark Slyd Hersh, not in a search for the truth, but to step on Bobby the Bug, whose been dead eight years when, as Powers says, these words were "written down in the heat of a government crisis, the words of a man [Henry Kiss] in a position to know [bK: and known to lie], recorded on the day, perhaps even within the hour, they were uttered." As Powers puts it (p.372-373), "...The secrets a the heart of secrets are rarely confided to official paper or the appropriate files. The deepest secrets of all have nothing to do with the burn time of ballistic missiles, the configuration of fissionable material in nuclear weapons, or other technical matters, but rather with what presidents want. Those are what ancient Chinese writer about war and statecraft Sun-tzu called 'mouth-to-mouth" matters." "One such surfaced recently when the Assassinations Records Review Board released a two-page 'Memorandum of Conversation' from Gerald Ford Presidential Library recording some comments of Henry Kissinger on January 4, 1975, during a discussion of news stories by Seymour Hersh claiming extensive wrongdoing by the CIA." "According to Max Holland, who is writing a book about the Warren Commission, Kissinger, then serving as both Ford's secretary of state and his national security advisor, had sought a blanket denial from the agency but had been infromed by William Colby that some major secrets remain hidden. A former director, Richard Helms, was summoned back to Washington from his post as Amabassador to Iran to fill in the details for Kissinger at a breakfast meeting shrotly before Kissinger met in the White House with President Ford and Brent Scowcroft, who was taking notes." "'Helms said all these stories are just the tip of the iceberg,' Kissinger said, as recorded by Scowcroft during the meeting with Ford. 'If they come out, blood will flow. For example, Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro.'" "The friends and defenders of the Kennedy brothers say it isn't so; but there it is on paper, written down in the heat of government crisis, the words of a man in a position to know, recorded on the day, perhaps even within the very hour, they were uttered." "Holland and Hersh, still on the case, also learned recently the name of the CIA intelligence officer named to serve as liaison with the attorney general during the year in which he continually pressed the CIA for results in getting rid of Castro - a career intelligence officer, now dead, named Charles Ford." "According to Ford's office-mate Sam Halpern, a CIA officfer also assigned to Task Force W in the agency's effort to get rid of Castro, Ford traveled hither and yon about the country on Robert Kennedy's business, but there public knowlege comes to an end. Hersh's book The Dark Side of Camelot, published in 1998, includes some addiional ancillary detail. Whether still-classified CIA files can fill out the story of Ford's work for Bobby remains unknown but it's likely, just as it is likely no one will be given free range of the files until many, many additional years have passed, if then." "Think of the CIA's files as the nation's unconscious. There you may find the evidence, like the gouges on rock where a glacer has passed, of what American leaders really thought, really wanted, and really did - important clues to who we are as a people. Does this eternal battle over access to the files make sense when few still care what happened at the Bay of Pigs? Does it matter whether we are permitted to haul up the last piece of paper to the light of day before letting it rest? There is no right anwer, just personal preferences: some would rather know, and some would rather not." "[Mad Max] Holland and [Dark Slyd] Hersh, still on the case....." are undobutedly sill chasing down Charles Ford and what he was doing for "Bobby" traveling "hither and yon," the office-mate to Sam Halpern, the sill-alive CIA officer also assigned to Task Force W., who also hates Kennedy. Now that Bugliosi is fizzling out, I'm sure we will soon receive a barage of broadsides from the likes of Powers, Holland and Hersh. BK The note writing, record keeping General Brent Scowcroft served directly under presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and now with Bush Jr. Scowcroft is only one of several thousands of Mormons imbeded within influencial positions of U.S. Government Administrations. It is urgent, that JFK Researchers expose such powerful socio/religious/politico combinations! Harry Can you recommend some specific sources on a Mormon/gov't alliance Harry? Other than google that is. Myra Just now briefly checked google re; the subject, and can only point out my personal experience and associations as outlined in the 1990 manuscript/book, YROJ Connection to the JFK Assassination, and on the Forum Index under my name. My aim is to direct researchers toward the ongoing, and present powerful undercurrent of this successful subversion. One may well begin with Sen. Orrin Hatch,and/or Gen.Brent Scowcroft etc & etc. Harry Thank you Harry.

Woah. I thought Ruby planted the magic bullet. What other reason would Ruby have had for popping up at the hospital? To make sure the president was dead so the plotters wouldn't have to use plan C?

I don't really see how it's possible to critique your theory when you decline to share supporting evidence. However, as I was reading Ultimate Sacrifice it was clear to me that it was propaganda. Obviously that means the authors were either disinformation agents or incredibly gullible and illogical.

The whole Kissinger/Helms story that RFK was behind plots to kill Castro was new to me when it recently made news, but then I just read the same story (Intelligence Wars, NYRB, 2004) in a Thomas Powers New York Review of Books from February 4, 1999. Thomas Powers, who of Oswald, in the chapter called The Mind of the Assassin, after reviewing most of his intelligence related activities, writes, "Oswald's Tale brings us right up to the pinch-lipped misery and sour odor of the man. He borught pain to many and happiness to none. Anger is what this makes me feel. It was an insect that brought Kennedy down. Would to God he had popped first beneath somebody's foot." Powers then joins forces with Mad Max Holland and Dark Slyd Hersh, not in a search for the truth, but to step on Bobby the Bug, whose been dead eight years when, as Powers says, these words were "written down in the heat of a government crisis, the words of a man [Henry Kiss] in a position to know [bK: and known to lie], recorded on the day, perhaps even within the hour, they were uttered." As Powers puts it (p.372-373), "...The secrets a the heart of secrets are rarely confided to official paper or the appropriate files. The deepest secrets of all have nothing to do with the burn time of ballistic missiles, the configuration of fissionable material in nuclear weapons, or other technical matters, but rather with what presidents want. Those are what ancient Chinese writer about war and statecraft Sun-tzu called 'mouth-to-mouth" matters." "One such surfaced recently when the Assassinations Records Review Board released a two-page 'Memorandum of Conversation' from Gerald Ford Presidential Library recording some comments of Henry Kissinger on January 4, 1975, during a discussion of news stories by Seymour Hersh claiming extensive wrongdoing by the CIA." "According to Max Holland, who is writing a book about the Warren Commission, Kissinger, then serving as both Ford's secretary of state and his national security advisor, had sought a blanket denial from the agency but had been infromed by William Colby that some major secrets remain hidden. A former director, Richard Helms, was summoned back to Washington from his post as Amabassador to Iran to fill in the details for Kissinger at a breakfast meeting shrotly before Kissinger met in the White House with President Ford and Brent Scowcroft, who was taking notes." "'Helms said all these stories are just the tip of the iceberg,' Kissinger said, as recorded by Scowcroft during the meeting with Ford. 'If they come out, blood will flow. For example, Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro.'" "The friends and defenders of the Kennedy brothers say it isn't so; but there it is on paper, written down in the heat of government crisis, the words of a man in a position to know, recorded on the day, perhaps even within the very hour, they were uttered." "Holland and Hersh, still on the case, also learned recently the name of the CIA intelligence officer named to serve as liaison with the attorney general during the year in which he continually pressed the CIA for results in getting rid of Castro - a career intelligence officer, now dead, named Charles Ford." "According to Ford's office-mate Sam Halpern, a CIA officfer also assigned to Task Force W in the agency's effort to get rid of Castro, Ford traveled hither and yon about the country on Robert Kennedy's business, but there public knowlege comes to an end. Hersh's book The Dark Side of Camelot, published in 1998, includes some addiional ancillary detail. Whether still-classified CIA files can fill out the story of Ford's work for Bobby remains unknown but it's likely, just as it is likely no one will be given free range of the files until many, many additional years have passed, if then." "Think of the CIA's files as the nation's unconscious. There you may find the evidence, like the gouges on rock where a glacer has passed, of what American leaders really thought, really wanted, and really did - important clues to who we are as a people. Does this eternal battle over access to the files make sense when few still care what happened at the Bay of Pigs? Does it matter whether we are permitted to haul up the last piece of paper to the light of day before letting it rest? There is no right anwer, just personal preferences: some would rather know, and some would rather not." "[Mad Max] Holland and [Dark Slyd] Hersh, still on the case....." are undobutedly sill chasing down Charles Ford and what he was doing for "Bobby" traveling "hither and yon," the office-mate to Sam Halpern, the sill-alive CIA officer also assigned to Task Force W., who also hates Kennedy. Now that Bugliosi is fizzling out, I'm sure we will soon receive a barage of broadsides from the likes of Powers, Holland and Hersh. BK The note writing, record keeping General Brent Scowcroft served directly under presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and now with Bush Jr. Scowcroft is only one of several thousands of Mormons imbeded within influencial positions of U.S. Government Administrations. It is urgent, that JFK Researchers expose such powerful socio/religious/politico combinations! Harry Can you recommend some specific sources on a Mormon/gov't alliance Harry? Other than google that is.

Was Harvey supposed to testify to the HSCA? Gaeton Fonzi does not mention this in his book “The Last Investigation”. In fact, Fonzi does not appear to be very interested in Harvey (only mentioned three times in the text of the book). William Harvey was interviewed by the Church Committee (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities). It was partly because of Harvey’s testimony that Church established a subcommittee under Richard Schweiker in September, 1975, to investigate the performance of the intelligence agencies concerning the assassination of JFK. However, the investigation did not get its budget until the following year and by that time Harvey was dead (June, 1976). Harvey clearly knew things about the assassination and it was almost certain that he would have been interviewed by the HSCA if he had lived. It is indeed possible that Harvey would have given vital information to the HSCA and might have had an assisted heart-attack. Some witnesses who did die before they could testify include William Pawley (January, 1977), George De Mohrenschildt (March, 1977), William Sullivan (November, 1977) and David Sanchez Morales (May 1978). Sullivan, who carried out the original FBI investigation into the assassination, was one of six top FBI officials who died in a six month period in 1977. Others who were due to appear before the committee who died included Louis Nicholas, special assistant to J. Edgar Hoover and Hoover's liaison with the Warren Commission; Alan H. Belmont, special assistant to Hoover; James Cadigan, document expert with access to documents that related to death of JFK; J. M. English, former head of FBI Forensic Sciences Laboratory where Oswald's rifle and pistol were tested; Donald Kaylor, FBI fingerprint chemist who examined prints found at the assassination scene. Fonzi and his fellow investigators never discovered Carl E. Jenkins’ role in the plots against Castro and was never a candidate for being interviewed. The same goes for George Joannides. As a result, he was allowed to die of natural causes in 1990. As long as Jenkins is left alone he will also die of natural causes like his friend and fellow conspirator, Chi Chi Quintero. Ah, thank you John. I didn't realize there was a prolonged period between naming of the commission and securing a budget.

Was Harvey supposed to testify to the HSCA?

Has anyone read Michael Kurtz's book "The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy"? I'm just now reading his older book "Crime of the Century" and I'm very disappointed in it. There are a number of reasons, chief among them the lack of historical context in spite of the author trumpeting the fact that he's a historian. It treats the murder of President Kennedy as an isolated event, not bothering to mention decades worth of events that lead up to it and resulted from it. Other flaws: -Kurtz frequently quotes Claire Booth Luce like she's the oracle. I think Fonzi et al found out the hard way that she was a CIA disinfo agent. The reliance on her undermines the credibility of the book. -In his summary chapter about the gunshot sequence he completely ignores the neck wound. He's aware of the wound because he mentions it earlier in the book, but for some reason he leaves it out of the speculative summary chapter. Anyway, just a few observations. I suppose I just had overly high expectations of the book. I'm not sure if I'd even bother to read his newer one. And of course in DiEugenio's review of "Breach of Trust" he said this: "I was rather predisposed against reading Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust. Most of the recent books on the JFK case had been disappointing. Not just the horrible and ridiculous Ultimate Sacrifice, but others like the efforts of Jaime Escalante and Michael Kurtz."

"Review: Breach of Trust By James DiEugenio I was rather predisposed against reading Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust. Most of the recent books on the JFK case had been disappointing. Not just the horrible and ridiculous Ultimate Sacrifice, but others like the efforts of Jaime Escalante and Michael Kurtz...." More about Kurtz: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry108865

Yes! The best summary I've read of this overlong, redundant, redundant () propaganda.

I'm sure it is difficult when constantly provoked and lied about Mike. On the other hand the provocateur is simply not to be believed. In so many ways.

Done.