Myra Bronstein

Tag, you're it ToshASsss Just kidding ThomAS, you're a really really smart guy. Really...

________________________ Myra, I'm sure you're right. Keep up the good work.... --Thomas ________________________ And I'm sure the Rockefellers would approve of the work you do ToshAS. ___________________ (We??) thank you, Ms Bee! --Thomas (and Tosh?) LOL P.S. Keep up the good work.... P.P.S. "Paranoia Strikes Deep..." ___________________ Tag, you're it ToshASsss

________________________ Myra, I'm sure you're right. Keep up the good work.... --Thomas ________________________ And I'm sure the Rockefellers would approve of the work you do ToshAS.

______________________________ Excellent point, Ron. Too bad Ms Bee harassed him to the point of quiting The Forum.... --Thomas ______________________________ Ah but TomASS, you fill in so well for your hero, it's almost as though he speaks through you... Heckling by proxy. Covert even in his absence. Skulking around removing his own posts so no one can see for themselves if he contradicted himself every time his fingers touched the keyboard. Then playing the martyr, mean girl kicked e-sand in his e-face and chased him from his e-sandbox... Hey! Since you speak for ToSH you can go back into all his scrubbed posts and painstakingly reconstruct them (you MUST have them memorized given that you live vicariously through him) so that people can see and judge for themselves if he was e-bullied from the forum or if he fled after he repeatedly e-tripping himself up on his own e-words, hoisted on his own e-tard as it were, and someone pointed it out. How convenient that he scrubbed his posts squeaky clean before his deputy launched CIA Project: Heckle JFK Assassination Researcher, making it impossible for open-minded people to see the truth. How very very like the CIA that is to cover-up the facts, and even have a little ongoing propaganda campaign. Ahh, just like old times. So TomASS, since yoU now speak for ToSH, you should be able to explain why yoU (i.e., ToSH) felt it necessary to take the time to scrub all youR (i.e., hIS) posts from the site before yOu skulked off into the covert abyss. Why would an upstanding sincere truthful well-intentioned, not to mention martyred, guyS like you'SE need to hide what you'SE said? Do tell...

You have so many ideas about how other people can spend their time on this case BK. Will you be following up on your own suggestions? Myra, I just read Bugliosi's book while on the hopper, and he's got me convinced. I was wrong all along. My instincts betrayed me. All that time wasted. As the Bug says: "...The best course of action for those in the conspiracy community would be to just give up and find a new passion." So no, I won't be following up on my own suggestions. And I'm taking up wine. BK Well, your post is enough convince me. I shan't waste another instant. From now on I'll be drinking a lot of wine. On the hopper.

Ohmygod Tim... I'm so sorry. This is surreal.

Ok so I'm reading about John D. Rockefeller's Occasional Letter No.1 "detailing plans to mold the people, reduce national intelligence to the lowest common denominator, destroy parental influence, traditional and customs, and eliminate science and real learning, "in order to perfect human nature." http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/timeline.html The gist is that Rockefeller became an education philanthropist at least in part as a path to a controlled population—a population of "sheeple" customized for optimal ditch digging. Good read/background material here: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/gov/stevenyates-5.html So I'm wondering if President Kennedy's unusually lively intellect, and emphasis on learning, was yet another aspect that infuriated the ruling class. I'm not suggesting that it was a factor in his murder; there were plenty of those factors. His peacenik proclivities alone were enough to do him in. But, has anyone ever come across any evidence, readings, anything to indicate that JFK's love of learning and the arts was something that earned him the enmity of the rulers because they didn't want that mindset to contaminate the carefully cultivated dumbed-down populace?

You have so many ideas about how other people can spend their time on this case BK. Will you be following up on your own suggestions?

Flag set post.

Then there's the school of thought that the bullet came from an impossibly low angle, which has led some (like Tom Wilson in TMWKK) to speculate (wrongly I believe) that it came from the storm sewer.

Hi Ron/Larry The trees in this image appear to make good covering for a sniper from anyone who may be looking in that direction from the underpass. Although, i think there eyes may have been diverted to the limo by this time. I think it may also be possible to hit kenedy in the right temple from this position, although the windshield may pose a problem. ? ... You mean the windshield with the bullet hole in it?

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" "Another Colonel, the Frenchman Bastien Thiry, attempted in 1962 to avenge the honor of the French Army by assassinating General De Gaulle. He set up an ambush using submachine guns at an intersection in the suburbs of Paris one evening when the General's car was due to pass on the way to the airport. The car, an ordinary Citroen, was going about 40 miles an hour. On a signal from the Colonel (a brandished newspaper), the gunmen fired more than 100 rounds, but neither the General nor his wife nor the driver nor the security agent accompanying them was hit. The tires were shot out, but the driver accelerated immediately, and the General disappeared over the horizon." http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell15.html I'll just bet the perps were well aware of the reason the De Gaulle assassination failed, and insured that wouldn't happen in the Kennedy assassination. It may have even been the same gang. "The President's car was a Lincoln with a souped-up engine specially designed for rapid accelerations,..." http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell14.html "The first bullet came from no. 1 and struck the President in the throat. The second apparently came from no. 4 and hit the President in the back. No. 3 hit Connally, and no. 2's bullet went through a traffic sign between him and the car. Then, as Young blood covered Johnson and spectators began to scream, there was a pause. Four seconds after they opened fire, the gunmen must have been dumbfounded. When the first shot strangled the President, no one moved. At the sound of the second, Governor Connally turned around and was wounded, but the driver still didn't budge, and Kellerman barely turned his head. The final shots awakened the agents in the back-up car, but Kellerman was still lost in his dreams, and Greer failed to react even to the whine of Halfback's siren. Four shots had been fired, and the car was still moving at the same speed. Despite the careful preparations and the skillful marksmanship, not only was the President alive, but he was not mortally wounded. His life depended literally on Greer's reflexes,..." http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell18.html

Yeah, thanks Robin. I have no idea where the "Black" came from. ... Monsters from the id. Events such as Johnson loyalists whooping it up? Well, I'm looking forward to reading the rest. Thanks for posting this stuff.

Thanks for what you posted Robin. Are there some missing pages? If they could all be posted that'd be great. "The first realist" -- Agent Emery Roberts. Yeah, that's one way of putting it. This source does say that he called the SS agents back from when they charged the presidential limo after the first shots, but Clint Black was already too far. What possible legit excuse could there be for calling SS agents off during an obvious assassination? And it's reported in a major magazine yet there's no serious fallout?

I'm guessing most people will know the problem without the explanation. You're not the only person he harasses. And you're not the only person who has told him not to. Sometimes he forgets... Hey, he probably has a quota he has to make.

Welcome David. We're lucky that we have a forum like this; your presence is a real perk. I think you know from this thread that I think Salon is excellent. And I'm eager to read your book, which is en route from a special courier even now... Since I've read excerpts of your book and read/listened to many of your associated interviews, I have some questions from that material. I listened to your interview on WGN on Wednesday. (I'll mention to other forum members that the interview should be added to the WGN archives soon, the host said about a week: http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_c...mp;Itemid=267.) And in it you continued to, as you say, "establish an emotional narrative." Particularly when you revealed that Richard Goodwin said Bobby Kennedy's last words at the Ambassador were about his brother. Did I understand that correctly, and if so do you feel that Goodwin was confident about his recollection of those words? Also, regarding the timing of Bugliosi's book, when did you know that the two books would both be released around President Kennedy's birthday, and therefore serve as a point/counter-point to the crimes against the Kennedys? What I'm really wondering is: How much did Bugliosi's book impact you in terms of publicity and strategy and the story you want to tell? Do you mind the fact that a Bugliosi vs. Brothers duel is emerging? When you say "Bobby Kennedy was America's first assassination conspiracy theorist," are you intentionally trying to remove the taint from the term, sort of reclaim it? It almost seems like you've decided to take the term away from those that have misappropriated it to put us on the defensive, and instead embrace it. Am I reading too much into that? Also, you've seen the tangent we took while discussing your revelations about Bobby's researcher Sheridan, his encounter with Jim Garrison, and Sheridan's assessment of Garrison which I find harsh. Do you think Sheridan was being harsh in dismissing Garrison? I know you devote a chapter to it, but I'm just curious because it's so so tragic that they didn't unite. And finally, for now, you said "I'm actually amazed at how open the media now is to the idea that JFK was killed by a conspiracy -- even one connected to the government." Would you mind expanding on that? Maybe give an example or two? I would like to be similarly amazed, but perhaps I'm too cynical. I hope you don't mind some of the questions about your personal opinions on a few areas, as opposed to asking about research and hard facts (which I also hope you'll stick around for). It's unusual--as I think you know--to read a book in this area that focuses on flesh and blood and emotions instead of autopsy photos. Thank you. Myra

I see it right here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9964 Try kicking your pc.

I agree, but the opportunity may not last forever.... ... Maybe, but Google would not have purchased youtube if they didn't think it was feasible business model, even with the obvious legal problems youtube had when it was purchased. Frankly I don't understand why google seems so unconcerned, but they dove right in. I think youtube and/or sites like it are here to stay... at least until congress finds some excuse to destroy the pesky internet.

I'm probably the last one to learn the significance of "New Frontier": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier "The term New Frontier was used by John F. Kennedy in his acceptance speech in 1960 to the Democratic National Convention at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum as the Democratic nominee. Originally just a slogan to inspire America to get behind him, the phrase developed into a label for his administration's domestic and foreign programs. 'We stand at the edge of a New Frontier—the frontier of unfulfilled hopes and dreams. It will deal with unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus.'"

Woah. I haven't see the NY Times this gleeful since Bush stole the 2000 election. "So this is where one expects the reviewer to savage Bugliosi for all those wasted years and pages. Well, I can’t do it. The fact is, the darned book is pretty good. Putting aside its ridiculous length, I have to say “Reclaiming History” is in spots a delight to read. Bugliosi is refreshing because he doesn’t just pick apart the conspiracy theorists. He ridicules them, and by name, writing that “most of them are as kooky as a $3 bill.” Bugliosi calls the dean of conspiracy buffs, Mark Lane, “unprincipled” and “a fraud.” He quotes Harold Weisberg, the author of eight conspiracy-themed books, admitting that after 35 years of research, “much as it looks like Oswald was some kind of agent for somebody, I have not found a shred of evidence to support it.” What Bugliosi has done is a public service; these people should be ridiculed, even shunned. It’s time we marginalized Kennedy conspiracy theorists the way we’ve marginalized smokers; next time one of your co-workers starts in about Oswald and the C.I.A., make him stand in the rain with the other outcasts. " They're declaring war on researchers. Figures. They've been protecting war profiteers for years. XXXXX Edited language.

******************************************************* I somehow seemed to have missed this thread when it started. As I read through it, one fact remained blatantly clear, and that was the direct violation of The Geneva Accords, the Bay of Pigs, as well as the assignment of those supposed "advisers" to SEA from the late 1950's through the culmination of the Vietnam "conflict." Training of foreign nationals, on their own soil, for potential invasion of another country. A former French colony, regardless of whether they asked us for assistance or not, we still proceeded to insert ourselves in their civil war under the guise of that time-worn excuse, "protecting the free world from Communism." And, to this day, we continue to allow the C.I.A. to interfere, or engage, if you will, on behalf of Wall Street, for the soul purpose of extracting a targetted nation's resources, be it their natural resouces, or their sweat-shop laboring human resources. Only now, the rapidly becoming time-worn excuse is that we're "protecting the free world from Islamic "terrorists."" The United States and its mother country, The United Kingdom, continue to violate the rules and regulations of engagement agreed upon, and drawn up, as a direct result of the abuses inflicted upon the rights of humans, the conditions under which people were allowed to engage in mortal combat, and that no nation state's constitutional rights be infringed upon, or seized by empirical means. These rights were set forth in The Geneva Accords following the Second World War. The violations of these accords continue unabated by the very nations who contributed the time and effort to draft them in the first place. Nicely said Terry.

More: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=99579 "| Posted 07/06/2006 @ 2:32pm Nation and NY Times: Bay of Pigs Deja Vu "While the Bush Administration's war on a free, independent and aggressive media is unparalleled, US government attempts to suppress information are not new. More than forty years ago, for example, the New York Times acceded to the Kennedy Administration's request that it play down its advance knowledge of the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. (In a recent editorial, the Times wrote that "it seems in hindsight that the editors were over-cautious" by not printing what they knew about the invasion.) In his open letter explaining the decision to publish the banking records story, Executive Editor Bill Keller referred to the Times' handling of the Bay of Pigs story. "Our biggest failures," Keller wrote, "have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After the Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco." What is little known is the role The Nation played in this story. In November 1960, The Nation published the first article on preparations being made for what would become the Bay of Pigs invasion. According to Carey McWilliams, The Nation's editor at the time, "Ronald Hilton, director of Stanford University's Institute of Hispanic-American Studies had just returned from Guatemala with reports that it was common knowledge --indeed, it had been reported in La Hora, a leading newspaper, on October 30--that the CIA was training a guerrilla force at a secret base for an early invasion of Cuba." McWilliams promptly got in touch with Hilton, who confirmed details, and agreed that he could be quoted. McWilliams wrote an article setting forth the facts Hilton had given him, including the location of the base near the mountain town of Retalhulea. If the reports were true, McWilliams wrote, "then public pressure should be brought to bear upon the administration to abandon this dangerous and hare-brained project." in the meantime, he added, the facts should be checked out immediately "by all US news media with correspondents in Guatemala." Although a special press release was prepared-- to which copies of the article were attached-- the wire services ignored the story and only one or two papers mentioned it. However, The Nation's article was then called to the attention of a New York Times editor who assigned Times' reporter Paul Kennedy to do a story. Kennedy filed an article in January 1961 covering similar ground to the Nation's. But it was the Tad Szulc article in the Times-- that ran only a week before the invasion in April 1961 --that Kennedy called the Times's publisher about. The New York Times yielded to the President's demand that the story be reduced in prominence and detail. According to McWilliams's memoirs (and the Columbia University "Forum" on "The Press and the Bay of Pigs" of Fall 1967), a week or so after the Bay of Pigs fiasco a group of press executives met with President Kennedy at the White House. "At this session," McWilliams recounts, "the President complained of premature disclosure of security information in the press and cited Paul Kennedy's story in the New York Times as a case in point. The New York Times' Turner Catledge then reminded Kennedy that reports about the base had previously appeared in the Guatemalan newspaper La Hora and The Nation." The President reportedly turned to Catledge and said, "if you had printed more about the operation, you would have saved us from a colossal mistake." More than a year later, Kennedy told the New York Times' Orvil Dryfoos, "I wish you had run everything on Cuba...I am just sorry you didn't tell it at the time." On edit: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKszulc.htm "(1) Tad Szulc, New York Times (7th April, 1961) This is a city of open secrets and rampaging rumors for the legions of exiled Cubans who plot the downfall of Premier Fidel Castro and his regime. Men come and go quietly on their secret missions of sabotage and gun-running into Cuba, while others assemble at staging points here to be flown at night to military camps in Guatemala and Louisiana... The exiles intend... to gain a beachhead in Cuba to set up a 'Government in Arms' and then request diplomatic recognition by foreign nations."

Very strange: "Apr 7, Tad Szulc (d.2001) wrote a front page NY times article on anti-Castro forces training to fight at Florida bases and predicted a probable invasion on April 18. The invasion took place Apr 17." http://timelines.ws/20thcent/1961.HTML Appears to be true: "Tad Szulc, 74, Dies; Times Correspondent Who Uncovered Bay of Pigs Imbroglio May 22, 2001, Tuesday By DANIEL LEWIS (NYT); Foreign Desk DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Tad Szulc, former foreign correspondent for The New York Times whose reports of imminent assault on Cuba by anti-Castro Cubans in 1961 came to reality in disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, dies at age 74" http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...nce%20Agency%20 So CIA propaganda rag NY Times announces "covert" invasion of Cuba on front page days in advance as the CIA is assuring President Kennedy of utmost discretion? "C.I.A. Had Ability to Plant Bay of Pigs News, Document Shows March 24, 2001, Saturday By TIM WEINER (NYT); Foreign Desk Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 7, Column 1, 529 words DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Declassified CIA document shows that agency could virtually dictate articles directly onto international news wire services during and after Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961; it has been known since 1970's that in cold war CIA had handful of 'assets' in place at some news organizations like Associated Press and United Press International, particularly in foreign bureaus"

Hi john, I'm gutted to hear about this. Were there any specific personages or topics which received more attention from the hacker than others. Also, do you not maintain the files offline on your own PC for example. If so was this affected in any way. I hope you get the full site up and running again shortly. Regards Gary I am still away so I will not able to to get the whole of the site up until next week. They destroyed the whole of my website plus the back up copy. My service provider has been able to reconstruct part of my site with a backup they made in February 2006. I have a copy of the whole site hidden with friends. Hopefully I will be able to replace the material destroyed over the weekend. I have been in the Highlands investigating the assassination of someone by the British Secret Service during the Second World War. I believe it was part of a massive cover-up concerning a deal between Churchill and Hitler. I will post details on the forum when I get back next week. I'm confused about what I'm seeing then when I go to a page on Spartacus then. I'm seeing pages for everything now. Regardless, during the outage I consistently used googles cached versions of the pages, for example: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:OLB3p...lient=firefox-a Perhaps the cached versions can provide some material that was lost? I can view source on them. Regardless again, the site needs to be mirrored on a separate server, and have external (tape) backup.

I am interested Bernice, thanks. Wow, what a pack of lies.