Myra Bronstein

Continuing discussion from main Talbot thread.

(Previously, approximately, here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...p;#entry103559)

Copied from the old thread:

Thanks guys,

Personally I think Kennedy did write for the most point his own words, ably assisted by Sorensen, though not to the detraction of what Kennedy wished to say.

I feel incomparably amongst US Presidents, I'm aware of, his oratory was his outstanding strength and as John says his ability to go off the cuff was remarkable.

Once again thank you for your efforts in enlightening me.

Gary

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*.

The Defense of Christian Culture...

One thing I learned from attending a Jesuit college:

"You people have a mission in this world. And that mission is to kill commies for Christ!"

-- An actual quote from a Jesuit. Need I say more?

Kathy

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.

The Defense of Christian Culture...

One thing I learned from attending a Jesuit college:

"You people have a mission in this world. And that mission is to kill commies for Christ!"

-- An actual quote from a Jesuit. Need I say more?

Kathy

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.

Thanks guys,

Personally I think Kennedy did write for the most point his own words, ably assisted by Sorensen, though not to the detraction of what Kennedy wished to say.

I feel incomparably amongst US Presidents, I'm aware of, his oratory was his outstanding strength and as John says his ability to go off the cuff was remarkable.

Once again thank you for your efforts in enlightening me.

Gary

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.

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

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

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

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

Here is Gary Mack's explanation of the people being allowed on the underpass:

"The triple underpass was, and still is, private property owned by several railroads. Despite popular opinion, the Secret Service could not force people to leave private property. That is the reason the men had to be identified to the cops by S.M. Holland. The SS could have asked the men to leave, but they had absolutely no legal right to force them to go."

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.

Best wishes on the tour David, hope you get a little rest in between stops!

I just wanted to exapnd a bit on your point about the assassination efforts against Castro. It's now

clear that that there was a long term effort to assassinate Castro...starting in 1959 in an offer from

Sturgis to CIA personnel in Havana (including Morales of course) to set up a an assassination inside

Cuba while Castro was traveling to military posts. In the same period of time, crime assets in the U.S.

planned to kill him when he traveled to New York to the U.N. In the late 1960-61 time frame, in addition

to the Roselli plots, there were multiple CIA paramilitary operations being organized to attack and

kill Castro inside Cuba. In SWHT I describe one which was orchestrated by Carl Jenkins and utilized, among

others, Felix Rodriquez in a planned sniper attack....another was conducted during a naval mission

by Rip Robertson. None of these would have been known to RFK. Bottom line is that all of talk about

the Kennedy's plans to kill Castro pales beside these actual documented actions by crime and CIA personnel.

Later Johnson tried to blame all the murder plots on JFK and RFK ("murder inc.) but it just doesn't wash...

...

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.

I feel that they, including Greer and Kellerman, responded poorly to a very confusing situation.

Were I the limo driver, and hearing what I thought might be gunshots, as I looked at the "overpass" that was not cleared, and was probably THE most ideal position for a shooter, I would seriously have questioned, whether I should proceed toward the shooter.....or stop....there was no way to turn left or right, nor was it possibe to back up.

Who could clearly argue that if the driver thought that the assassin was to the front and above, that it may have not been the correct decision to "Stop and Clear the Car of Targets"!

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.

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.

************************************************************

"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.)

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

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.

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

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.

Hello!! Here I am on vacation, and thought I'd stop in REAL quick, and see how the board is doing. I find I have have a ton of PMs concerning this situation, and I see we have the May Edition of "Monthly Forum Fight" published, with the defeat going to one of the moderators.

If I went to a JFK Forum looking for information, the last thing I'd want to see is this type of feuding going on--- because we should be discussing aspects of the assassination.

It appears that in order for this type of thing to cease, one of the parties must "win", and it must be a published "win" at that. The funny thing here is that I don't think it matters to the viewing audience if there is a win--only to the participants.

We, as moderators, cannot solve the problems between you. We can, however, determine what is in the best interests of the Forum in general. Evidently, because someone did what he thought best to stop this, we no longer have him.

C'mon folks. Let's treat each other a little better. There are ways to say things, and ways to say things. (I hope you see what I mean here.) Remember that what you write here is forever on the internet, tied to YOUR name. I would hope that each one of us would demonstrate some degree of respect for self and others in our posts.

Kathy

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.

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.

... They sheep-dipped Oswald for a reason.

A goals of any crime are:

1. to accomplish it;
   
2. to get away;
   
3. 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 am not surpised that a man that could fabricate a prosecution on "Helter Skelter" could bend the truth concerning the JFK assassination. My guess is that the 'Bug' is still working for the same people as when he wrote the Manson Book. Don't get me wrong, Chuckie was a nut, however I have always beleived that someone has been behind Bugliosi.

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

Exactly. Which is why I'm trying to find out the ages of the dead witnesses.

Clearly, deaths of younger people arouse more suspicion.

I wonder if Penn Jones gave their ages.

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.

This is a small section from a William F. Buckley Jr article "Worshipping JFK." I think he wrote this around the time he wrote his novel on the Kennedy years, Getting It Right, a Novel. I always wondered if Buckley played a part in the Assassination of Kennedy. He says some miserable things. And I have to remember he's a staunch Catholic. ---

uexpress.com: On the Right with William F. Buckley Jr 11-21-03 Worshipping Kennedy

"Curiosity just goes on and on about Mr. Kennedy, and I subscribe to it, having recorded (but not yet seen) the two-hour show presided over by Peter Jennings at which we shall have one more chapter of the Grassy Knoll. The advertisements promise a computer re-creation of the assassination. I think it's about as clearly established that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy as that John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln, but seeing it all again, you can use up a little agnostic curiosity on that morbid episode, draining it for a year or two. It is always exciting to read about the assassination of Julius Caesar, particularly when the tale is told by the greatest tale-teller in dramatic literature, never mind that we know that Brutus did it. It goes that way, also, for JFK.

But the question I was asked didn't have to do with who killed JFK, but with what was his legacy. It was, said I, entirely personal. Nothing that Mr. Kennedy did in the way of public policy was either singular or enduring in effect. In foreign policy, he lost out on Berlin, presiding over the death of the Four Power Agreement over that city.

Kennedy did not consummate his war against Castro at any level. At the military level, he failed at the Bay of Pigs. At the dirty-dog level, he failed in four or five attempts to assassinate Castro; failed with toxic cigars, impregnated wet suits and poison pills. At the diplomatic level, we focus more appropriately on the arrival of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba than on their withdrawal. It is acknowledged by everyone that we very nearly had a nuclear exchange in October 1962, and historical adjudications correctly deal with the fact of the missiles being deployed there, rather than of the fact that they were finally shooed away."

Kathy

Myra,

The moderators use the same methods of contact as you do. All of the moderators live in different time zones, so it is likely that we will check private messages and respond to them before we take a look at the forum.

None of us want to see insults on the forum, but unless you suggest we take pre-emptive action, there is not much we can do apart from respond to them after the fact. I'm not planning on constantly consulting with Antti in Finland or Evan in Australia as I simply have not got the cash, so we are just going to have to live with that.

I suggest that we simply drop the issue, as there is not going to any resolution as long as people consistently engage in ridiculous arguments. I suggest that people (whoever) take the high ground and walk away from this matter. Give me a PM if you want to discuss it further.

I just want to see a resolution to this by the end of the day, whatever time zone we are in.

All the best,

John

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.

...

As Dr. Goebell's once said, "the larger the lie....." !

...

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.

Kathy, the KKK is a multi flavoured multi layered cake ever shifting, splintering and regrouping. 'The Inner Sanctum' or the true invisible empire is a domain not on display on moon lit nights by the lake. It is a dedicated, educated, elite. They have an agenda that historically can be traced back over a hundred years. Some (perhaps mythologically, 'romantically') date it to the Germanic-Roman wars.

The original Klan in question here, dates to the Civil War. It's multi layered structure allows for 'non-membership' as a strategy. Visibility is a strategy.

What it does do is provide a repository of what Marx's terminology would call an aspect of the 'Lumpen proletariat'. This is a grouping that is dependent on ignorace of self, and the world as it is, and motivated by base human reaction. This is the malleable Einsatzgruppen member, the torchlight marcher, the foot soldier, the worshipper at the foot of the Leader. For a sense of existance they congreagate visibly. Behind the scene are Funders, Think Tanks, Alliances ad infinitum which one is not readily, if at all, privy to.

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.

I think I have to do a better job of getting the word out about all the materials on www.maryferrell.org, admittedly perhaps too hard to find among almost 500,000 pages.

Ten of Doug's memos have been online for some months now:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...o?docSetId=1113

The one in question here is #6, though I recommend reading them all.

Rex

I therefore implore and encourage anyone who is intrigued by the subject of the post-autopsy examination and photography of President Kennedy’s brain to first read my 32-page research memo (it is not 15 pages long, as Bugliosi claims) entitled “Questions Regarding Supplementary Brain Examination(s) Following the Autopsy on President John F. Kennedy,” dated June 2, 1998 ...

My research memo can be obtained at minimal cost from the JFK Records Collection at Archives II in College Park, Maryland.

I will ask Rex Bradford if he might be able to obtain a copy and post it on maryferrell.org

Thanks Rex for posting Doug's excellent memo. Bugliosi let it go to his head back in the 80's when he prosecuted LHO in a mock trial. I think he's in someone's pocket. No one with more than 4 brain cells believes the WC nonsence. I have no plan to get his book. It would just infuriate me.

I totally agree with Doug's post: that people like the bug resort to name calling when they don't have the facts on thier side. He gives my profession (atty.) a bad name.

Dawn

I've been wondering why the second attorney at Bugliosi's mock trial was Gerry Spence, instead of a genuine expert/attorney like, oh I dunno, Mark Lane.