Myra Bronstein

I WOULD HOPE THAT THOSE WHO WANT TO DISCUSS SORENSON OR JFK'S SPEECHES SHOULD USE THE THREAD WITH THAT TITLE AND LEAVE THIS ONE FOR A DIALOG WITH DAVID TALBOT. THANKS - BK Posting this query here in hopes Mr. Talbot will see it & respond. Thanks. Hear, hear. "I have not seen the photographs David mentions. Jefferson Morley has alleged photographs of George Joannides taken in Saigon in 1973 and provided by a CIA source but will not send me a copy." David Talbot makes strong allegations. It would seem appropriate & useful that the foundation of these allegations comes to light. Would Mr. Simkin please ask Mr. Talbot and, via Mr. Talbot, Mr. Morely if these photos which cast doubt on O'Sullivan's discoveries cannot be put forward? After all, a question arises. Why not prove the case? "So it wasn't complete lunacy for Shane O'Sullivan to assume that this might have been David Morales caught on camera." - Talbot This comment looks like a fillip on the nose. What's afoot? Oops, sorry. Here's the new thread for discussion of President Kennedy's speaking and writing style: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10064

Continuing discussion from main Talbot thread. (Previously, approximately, here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;#entry103559) Copied from the old thread: I would really like to know more about his speeches as well. What I know at this point is on this thread. And when I google the subject I see no name but Sorensen. But most presidents have many speech writers and he gave almost daily speeches, often multiple times per day, so I assume he had more. What I do know from reading so many of his speeches is that his style was very consistent and distinctive. They contained words that are outside of the standard spoken vocabulary, and had regular literary references. At the same time they're very plain spoken and precise. When he spoke, seemingly, off the cuff (press conferences, meetings, journal, etc) he had much the same style and vocabulary and scope of cultural literacy. So it seems like the speech writer(s) and he were in synch. He almost always had a strong opening line, relatively weak closing line, and a quote in the last 2/3 or so. I've read that he preferred short sentences. And probably his trademark was his use of chiasmus (a word I just learned--here in fact: http://www.chiasmus.com/mastersofchiasmus/kennedy.shtml, "chiasmus (ky-AZ-mus) n . a reversal in the order of words in two otherwise parallel phrases). For example: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." "Let us never negotiate out of fear; but let us never fear to negotiate." "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." "Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain." "Each success brings with it the potential of failure and each failure brings with it the potential of success." ... I wonder where that trademark originated. I understand his childhood in a large family was a free thinking wide ranging table talk. His dad didn't inhibit but encouraged it. It has some hallmarks of DeBono's lateral thinking in being provocative and 'mind opening'. It's a style that allows 'new' ideas where dogma may otherwise be dominant. It (DeBono) is also a style that involves wit, as well as 'thinking outside the box'. There is also a touch Marx's dialectics*. IOW the interdependence of opposites. Thesis - Antithesis. In every act is a seed of it's opposite. Buddhist thinking is also evoked, as Pali, Buddhas language had a way of expressing the opposites as specific words rather than a collection of words. For example, 'there is no-god' doesn't mean 'there is no god', but that the idea of 'no-god' exists. 'Freethinking' has a history as well. I imagine Kennedy as the true scholar was well trained in open mindedness, and much of what he says provokes the listener to think differently than otherwise. A liberating experience that those who would allow it for themselves value immensely. Kennedy just by being who he was was a threat to some. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gromyjfk.htm "Kennedy received his secondary education in private schools. After finishing high school in 1935 he spent a semester studying in England in the London School of Economics*, then studied for some time at Princeton University /USA/, from which he transferred to Harvard University /USA/, which he completed with honors in 1940 with a degree in political science*. In 1940 Kennedy attended a course of lectures in the trade-and-commerce department of Stanford University. Not long before the Second World War Kennedy visited a series of countries in Latin America, the Near East, and Europe, including the Soviet Union*." ie He had first hand experiences of the countries he would deal with as President, including the USSR at around the age of 23. It's not unreasonable to assume he was well versed in dialectics*.

Ohmygod that is hilarious. And something I could imagine coming from the lovely and charming HL Hunt. Well I've learned enough to about Hunt's espionage network to allow me to learn something about Hunt's espionage network, specifically the keywords "Paul Rothermel." He was an FBI guy who headed up Hunt's culture rich gang, which apparently had other ex-FBIers as well as the ubiquitous "rouge CIA agents." And a private army--the American Volunteer Group (AVG). He bought Walker his own army! Then he could preach to them about the John Birch Society all he wanted. It would have been better if he just got him a GI Joe doll. fruitcakes with massive amts of money are frightening not funny I got my MA from a Jesuit University and had an advisor pitch me for "an intelligence agency" Well that sure is interesting Evan. I keep reading little blurbs about various religious sects being involved with espionage agencies, including the Catholic church, but this is the first reliable piece of info I've received on the subject.

Ohmygod that is hilarious. And something I could imagine coming from the lovely and charming HL Hunt. Well I've learned enough to about Hunt's espionage network to allow me to learn something about Hunt's espionage network, specifically the keywords "Paul Rothermel." He was an FBI guy who headed up Hunt's culture rich gang, which apparently had other ex-FBIers as well as the ubiquitous "rouge CIA agents." And a private army--the American Volunteer Group (AVG). He bought Walker his own army! Then he could preach to them about the John Birch Society all he wanted. It would have been better if he just got him a GI Joe doll.

I would really like to know more about his speeches as well. What I know at this point is on this thread. And when I google the subject I see no name but Sorensen. But most presidents have many speech writers and he gave almost daily speeches, often multiple times per day, so I assume he had more. What I do know from reading so many of his speeches is that his style was very consistent and distinctive. They contained words that are outside of the standard spoken vocabulary, and had regular literary references. At the same time they're very plain spoken and precise. When he spoke, seemingly, off the cuff (press conferences, meetings, journal, etc) he had much the same style and vocabulary and scope of cultural literacy. So it seems like the speech writer(s) and he were in synch. He almost always had a strong opening line, relatively weak closing line, and a quote in the last 2/3 or so. I've read that he preferred short sentences. And probably his trademark was his use of chiasmus (a word I just learned--here in fact: http://www.chiasmus.com/mastersofchiasmus/kennedy.shtml, "chiasmus (ky-AZ-mus) n . a reversal in the order of words in two otherwise parallel phrases). For example: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." "Let us never negotiate out of fear; but let us never fear to negotiate." "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." "Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain." "Each success brings with it the potential of failure and each failure brings with it the potential of success." ... I wonder where that trademark originated.

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator. If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves. ********************************************************** "If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves." Stop this, right now! Before your credibility is all shot to hell! I am really disappointed that a bright individual, such as yourself, would continue in this vein. And, I am thoroughly disgusted with this culmination of events that have led to the deterioration of a perfectly good topic. Furthermore, I refuse to sit back and witness the "kamikaze" tactics of someone I had wished to have held in higher esteem than this. I must concede, Antti is right, with regard to a waste of bandwidth. Shut it down. You got it Terry. I respect you so you have my ear. I do hope that the regard for bandwidth, and I mean this sincerely, extends to seemingly endless battles with Kathy that have hijacked many threads that I hoped to get something useful out of, the "Death of Witnesses" one among them. ****************************************************** "I do hope that the regard for bandwidth, and I mean this sincerely, extends to seemingly endless battles with Kathy that have hijacked many threads that I hoped to get something useful out of, the "Death of Witnesses" one among them." Just a long as you can maintain control of the focus of the thread and not allow it to drift off into some gossip-mongering, disrespectful, self-serving, "tell all" fantasy tangent of, "shoulda'-woulda'- coulda'-if-only-I-had-been-her-friend" endless conjecturing. Then by all means, I will steer clear of your research efforts and investigative pursuits. Hopefully, you'll emerge as the effective mentor needed in this case. Your equally concerned research colleague, Terry Mauro I can only try. I'm not taking responsibility for someone else. I do appreciate your comments Terry. *********************************************************** "I do appreciate your comments Terry." And, I do yours, as well as your exceptional insight, which I've always admired far and above everything else. You're a natural-born leader from what I've observed. That's why I trust your judgment and ability to get to the heart of the matter without having to bog yourself down in non-essential bull-pucky. Carry on. Consider me merely as a commentator making an observation. I'm waiting on Talbot's book at this point in time, anyway. Ter I was noticing the other day that you've pointed me to Rockefeller, Harriman, Robert Kerr, IG Farben... All were right on the money. Sure do appreciate that. I just got Talbot's book and will start reading it in a couple of days. So maybe we'll be in synch

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator. If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves. ********************************************************** "If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves." Stop this, right now! Before your credibility is all shot to hell! I am really disappointed that a bright individual, such as yourself, would continue in this vein. And, I am thoroughly disgusted with this culmination of events that have led to the deterioration of a perfectly good topic. Furthermore, I refuse to sit back and witness the "kamikaze" tactics of someone I had wished to have held in higher esteem than this. I must concede, Antti is right, with regard to a waste of bandwidth. Shut it down. You got it Terry. I respect you so you have my ear. I do hope that the regard for bandwidth, and I mean this sincerely, extends to seemingly endless battles with Kathy that have hijacked many threads that I hoped to get something useful out of, the "Death of Witnesses" one among them. ****************************************************** "I do hope that the regard for bandwidth, and I mean this sincerely, extends to seemingly endless battles with Kathy that have hijacked many threads that I hoped to get something useful out of, the "Death of Witnesses" one among them." Just a long as you can maintain control of the focus of the thread and not allow it to drift off into some gossip-mongering, disrespectful, self-serving, "tell all" fantasy tangent of, "shoulda'-woulda'- coulda'-if-only-I-had-been-her-friend" endless conjecturing. Then by all means, I will steer clear of your research efforts and investigative pursuits. Hopefully, you'll emerge as the effective mentor needed in this case. Your equally concerned research colleague, Terry Mauro I can only try. I'm not taking responsibility for someone else. I do appreciate your comments Terry.

I keep reading that assassination participant HL Hunt set-up a right-wing intelligence network, the International Committee for the Defense of Christian Culture. But I'm having trouble finding details. Does anyone know the year he started that group? Can you share other info about it (employees, size, activities, etc)? Anything... I've already looked at the obvious places like Spartacus, Wiki, google, and searched on this forum. Just not finding much detail. Thanks.

Well, FWIW, this is what the 1968 book Farewell America has to say about the funding: "1. We estimate the cost of the preparation, the assassination itself and the post-assassination clean-up at between $5 and $10 million. Contributions varied between $10,000 and $500,000, and there were about 100 beneficiaries." http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell14.html

The Secret Service had absolutely no legal right to the late President's body that they removed from Parkland despite the protestations of Dr. Earl Rose. Well they certainly were selective in their regard for the letter of the law.

No it doesn't wash, but it gets major mileage from Propaganda Inc. Characterizing both brothers as bloodthirsty heathens, indistinguishable from bloodthirsty heathen LBJ, is high up on the the Propaganda Inc. play list. In particular they delight in claiming that President Kennedy was behind the assassination of Diem, when in fact JFK was horrified by that CIA coup. But claiming the Kennedys were cut out of the same cloth as LBJ is essential to the post-assassination character assassination that makes the case that even if President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, so what? He was just another standard issue corrupt politician and his murder had no impact on history. The success of this strategy just blows me away. It's nearly impossible to read one word that Kennedy uttered in his short presidency, on any subject, and conclude that he was a typical politician. Should anyone bother to seek out his words it becomes crystal clear that he was positively a revolutionary, on almost any policy matter he turned his attention to.

Do you mean the people on the overpass in this picture? A picture , unlike the cropped version of it that doesn't show people on the overpass. The question has to be; why were these people allowed to be there in the first place? Wouldn't that create some security issues? Ok, let's say Greer thought what you guess he was thinking. It didn't work very well, did it? So quickly speeding up to 50 or miles per hour in that six seconds just might have been a better idea? "Just a thought" I have related this story once before about the night i was walking home, in San Diego in the mid-late 70's, and started to cross a freeway overpass. I was not quite to the bridge when a police unit stopped me and told me I could not cross the bridge. To save time I will forego the whole story and get to the point. I was not allowed on the bridge as the President was to be driven under it on his way to a speaking/fundraising engagement. I believe it is highly unlikely that the SS did not follow the same procedure in the 60's. Take into consideration the sheer number of overpasses between the airport and the location in La Mesa, a distance of 16 miles, and the number of officers needed to secure these overpasses. I guarantee you not one person was allowed on one of those overpasses that night. There is no excuse for there being even one person atop that bridge in 1963. The SS should have stopped the motorcade when people were observed upon the bridge. The lead car knew there were to be no persons allowed upon the bridge and should have radioed a warning long before the motorcade was on Elm Street. Just because there was no obvious gain to be had by the SS as a unit does not mean that there was not cooperation given by individuals within the unit. We should give apologies to the men who failed to act to protect our president? Not in my lifetime. Nor mine, Chuck. ... No, no apologies from me to a group that--at best--was a bunch of drunken criminally negligent thugs.

************************************************************ "I suppose that a fundamental question would be: what funding strategy would best serve a plot of this scale? The need to keep the secret would have to be balanced against the need for leverage against participants should they later be compelled to speak, and for money of course." This is why I would venture to say that the Wall Street financial houses, including the banks and quite possibly, the Security and Exchange Commission under whose auspices the oil industry is allowed to flourish and thrive. Throw in a Wall Street corporate law firm of prestigious holdings and vested interests, such as Sullivan and Cromwell, who had situated themselves so strategically and advantageously as to provide a protective umbrella from which to launch, "The Plan," [thank you, Charles Black]. There would be no question of anything ever happening to a money supply vast enough to be needed to sustain a plot of this magnitude. Funding the "money" would be no object to these people. "Farewell America," an old book that most have probably read, is one of the few bold enough to name names. I'm in the midst of reading it, but so far it comes out and points a finger at HL Hunt and Edwin Walker. I agree with them. And given that Hunt was Mr Moneybags, his participation likely involved funding. I also find it endlessly fascinating that Hunt's office was on the deadly Dallas motorcade route, making him one of the last people who could have seen President Kennedy alive. I appreciate the specificity of "Farewell America" and would like to emulate that. (I assume that defamation laws have deterred many authors from specificity.)

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator. If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves. ********************************************************** "If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves." Stop this, right now! Before your credibility is all shot to hell! I am really disappointed that a bright individual, such as yourself, would continue in this vein. And, I am thoroughly disgusted with this culmination of events that have led to the deterioration of a perfectly good topic. Furthermore, I refuse to sit back and witness the "kamikaze" tactics of someone I had wished to have held in higher esteem than this. I must concede, Antti is right, with regard to a waste of bandwidth. Shut it down. You got it Terry. I respect you so you have my ear. I do hope that the regard for bandwidth, and I mean this sincerely, extends to seemingly endless battles with Kathy that have hijacked many threads that I hoped to get something useful out of, the "Death of Witnesses" one among them.

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator. If you do that to me I'll just use the other login I post under: Thomas Graves.

Once again thank you for the moderators for trying to bring sanity to this forum. However, it does seem that a couple of members seem determined to cause disputes on this forum. I am thinking seriously of putting them on permanent moderation. This means that their postings will not appear on this forum until approved by a moderator. That reminds me, my "ignore" function won't accept the name "john simkin." Is there a bug with it or is it designed not to accept that name? Thank you for any assistance you can offer with this.

A goals of any crime are: to accomplish it; to get away; to not get caught afterward. Are you familiar with the concept of red herrings? Think it through .... And the gist of my post, Duke, was: what is IT? Think it through...

I'm still leaning towards Chuckie being an MKUltra project to drive the nail in the coffin of the peace and love generation.

Myra, I can give you info on Karyn Kupcinet. She was born Roberta Lynn Kupcinet on March 6, 1941 in Chicago, IL. Later they referred to her as "Cookie." When she went to Hollywood, she was using the name Karyn Kupcinet. She died in West Hollywood on November 28, 1963 (Thanksgiving) of aphyxiation due to manual strangulation. She was 22 years old. (Accounts always say she was 23. No, she was 22.) Kathy Thanks Kathy. I'm most interested in date of death, age, then place of death. And you gave me all 3. Appreciate it.

We'll have to get Gore Vidal in here to put him in his place, as he did during the 68 Dem convention. What'd Gore call him? A crypto-fascist I believe. Ah, it was glorious. And he was right. Though he left out the part about Buckley being a propagandist for the regime. So he's party line all the way. Like Bugliosi. Two of a kind.

Make sense. Thanks John. I guess I would only ask that moderators monitor insults and harassment with as much vigilance as they do swear words.

I don't think a discussion like this can be complete without addressing the original goal(s) of the plot, and whether or not the perps accomplished all of their goal(s). Obviously the murder was a goal. If, as seems logical to me, a second goal was to blame a "commie" country, like Cuba or Russia, and start or escalate a hot war as a result (not to mention further vilifying "commies"), then the perps didn't accomplish their goal. The benefactors of war are: military (to justify their existence and budget) and industrial (to make loads of blood money). In the case of Cuba potential benefactors would have included those with businesses--casinos, fruit, banks, sugar--that were nationalized by Castro, who wanted their business back. United Fruit?/Standard Fruit?/CIA. The war profiteers did get some of what they wanted eventually with Vietnam. But I think they wanted a bigger and more immediate bang for their buck and didn't get that. They sheep-dipped Oswald for a reason.

Apparently Bugliosi took that very literally and decided to produce the largest heaviest book. In terms of sheer tonnage he wins hands down.

And this thread speculates that William Pawley financed the assassination. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5068 I guess I'm more inclined to assume that multiple people financed it, though HL Hunt was almost certainly one. And Pawley I agree was involved, maybe as a funder. I suppose that a fundamental question would be: what funding strategy would best serve a plot of this scale? The need to keep the secret would have to be balanced against the need for leverage against participants should they later be compelled to speak, and for money of course. Which is more desirable: one funder for maximum discretion or multiple funders so that more people have a vested interest in perpetuating the cover up? More funders would also provide a safety net; if something happened to one money supply the plot could be sustained.

Exactly how many "General Grade" Officer's is it that have died in Iraq? How About Afghanistan? There are definitive reasons as to why it was often referred to as the "Invisible Empire". Not unlike military service, there are many "dumb-XXXXX" out there who are willing to "die for the cause". Merely because someone else told them what the cause was and they do not have adequate sense to figure our for themselves exactly who's "cause" it is that they are getting killed for. Edited language. wouldn't want to offend late high-school and college/university age students who are certainly old enough to die in uniform, with a few choice swear words that rise to the occasion, eh? Ah, the rare person with perspective.