Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
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?
________________________
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.
-
Tosh Plumlee once posted something that I had been totally unaware of, which was that the train tracks in 1963 were on an elevation of about 4 feet above the floor of the overpass. If true, this would also have helped any shooter crouching behind the slanting wall at the south end from being seen by the officer or anyone else at the northwest end, even with no train passing.
______________________________
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...
-
Rather than focus on mysterious deaths, why not generate enough interest to solve the verifiable homicides that the criminal justice system must address?
...
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.
-
I am currently reading Talbot's book and will certainly comment when I am able. Attending the Dallas COPA conference in '04, when he was a presenter, he made a point to tell me that he appreciated my assertion that it is too easily assumed that the brothers were on the same page on all matters.
On a personal note, the widow of Peter Benchley (author of Jaws), who died from the disease assaulting me (IPF), was caused by bad scuba air which, at "99' deep, is driven into the lungs at four times the surface level. I wish I had the time to develop and promote a personal device for testing the tank air, especially in some of these fleabag Third World scuba operations.
Such a device makes a world of sense and, given divers' general love of gadgetry, would sell like hot cakes! We could call it a Scuba Quality Unit Air Tester (SQUAT). But on a more personal note even still, after all of the above, my brother died of a heart attack just last night. I kind of thought that the end of my own life was the only big drama left. Just goes to show that it ain't over until the fat lady sings.
Tim
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?
-
Rather than focus on mysterious deaths, why not generate enough interest to solve the verifiable homicides that the criminal justice system must address?
...
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.
-
...
I've always wondered about the faint trail of the bullet seen in the Z frames fractionally before JFK's head explodes. It appeared to be coming from an impossibly high angle...
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.
-
Larry,
In a nutshell, we have evidence that the fatal head shot came from the area of the south end of the overpass. This source of the shot was persuasively argued by Al Carrier, and is also now the opinion of blood spatter expert Sherry Gutierrez. Now consider that we have a bunch of people on the north end, who would unwittingly distract attention from the south end, and we have a police officer who sees a non-existent train that blocks his view of the south end.
It all fits pretty neatly, doesn't it?
Ron
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?
-
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"
"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,..."
-
...
Hi Myra.
Thanks.
I beleive you meant Clint Hill and not Clint Black. ?
...
Yeah, thanks Robin.
I have no idea where the "Black" came from.
...
Monsters from the id.
...Yeh, i do have some more pages to post, the SOURCE is William Manchester it was from a 4-part series he did for Look Magazine.
It went over 4- separate Issues and i have them all.
Soon i will post part 3 where he talks about the events that hapened on Air Force One.
...
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 saw the news.
Brian Williams spun it a "mystery which may never be solved"
which is something, anyway.
The fragments are now scientifically proven to NOT be from only
two rounds, but likely point to a third or fourth similar lead round...
Of course GARY MACK has his entire career tied up with the
Dallas Museum / Warren Commission belief system.
Most viewers drew the opposite conclusion, that the
single bullet and sole assassin theory has been WEAKENED......
(((( Gary Mack - Do not contact me again : I consider it harassment )))
explanation: this guy reads the Forum, never contributes to the debate
and has sent me inflammatory email responding to my posts ................???????
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.
-
Hello everyone -- I'm back in the Forum after a long absence, so I hope I still remember how to post properly. I'm very interested to read this group's comments on the book, since I have a high regard for what John and you all have accomplished in -- keeping the debate going on this deepest of political traumas.
I'd like to reply briefly to some of the remarks that I've read, and I'd be happy to stick around for awhile (until my book tour resumes in a few days and I get spirited away again). And speaking to Anthony's question, yes my tour has been a real eye-opener about the state of the JFK debate in America. 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. Of course the Bugliosi book is also being championed in media circles -- the Bugliosi vs. Brothers duel is shaping up as this year's Oliver Stone vs. Posner battle. But at least the debate has been joined, or rejoined, and I think that is healthy for the US -- particularly in this strange, post-Bush era where the country is debating its place in the world (similar to the JFK era, when Kennedy was trying to redefine the US role in the world).
On Ray's comment about Brothers being more about a "love story at the highest political levels" between two brothers. Thank you for seeing that! That was indeed the main focus of my book -- and of course Bobby's search for justice for his dead brother. And thank you Myra for seeing the book as "a new path" into the JFK labyrinth. I did indeed want to avoid getting lost in some of the old dark tunnels, and I thought telling the story from Bobby's perspective would give me a chance to do that. I thought it was very important to establish an emotional narrative for the reader -- because that conveys what we feel in our hearts, those of us who still remember or care about the Kenendy story -- instead of presenting another detailed brief for conspiracy, which has already been done by many others more qualified than myself on the forensics minutiae of Dealey Plaza.
On Don's comment about Garrison: I devote an entire chapter to New Orleans, because I think it is a critical part of the RFK/Dallas story. I hope readers will see that I have a complex view of Garrison and Sheridan. I think of them both as flawed heroes, who unfortunately for the case, were both doomed to clash -- given their polar-opposite personalities and different agendas.
On Dawn's comments about footnotes. The publishing industry practice these days (for popular history books at least) is to publish end notes instead of numbered footnotes, which I admit are a bit harder to decipher. But by looking at the key words in the end notes section, you can figure out the source citations.
Finally on Pat's comments about Angelo Murgado and why I found his RFK/Oswald story credible. Big discussion, and happy to go into it further with you, but suffice it to say for now, that I DID take note of his version of the Sylvia Odio story (in my end notes) -- which, like you, I find dubious. I think he was trying to blur his and Bernardo De Torres' possible connection to Oswald, for obvious reasons. But I believe he was on more solid ground with his RFK/Oswald story.
I look forward to a lively dialogue with all of you.
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
-
Thank you Robin.
I can find the thread itself, via a back door route, but using either Firefox or Netscape there remains no header in the Forum Topic listing. Odd. Maybe I should run defrag.
David
I see it right here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9964
Try kicking your pc.
-
One way we can fight back is by posting Youtube videos and connections to this site on other sites that get a lot more hits.
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.
-
...
Dear General Groves:
In view of the Sylvanus Thayer Award to John J. McCloy (May, 1963) by the United States Military Academy's Association of Graduates, I hereby resign from the Association of Graduates. I respectfully request that my name and membership be dropped from your rolls. The Association of Graduates is not representing me in it's presentation of the Sulvanus Thayer Award to John J. McCloy as an honored and distinguished United States citizen whose service and accomplishments in the national interests exemplify outstanding devotion to the ideals expressed in the West Point motto, "Duty, Honor, Country."
I prefer to stand by the ideals, principles, and traditions of the Long Grey Line - past, present, and future - rather than to stand with the Association and the temporary administrators of our government. The New Frontiersmen of today were accurately classified by Khrushchev before he took Cuba - "Too liberal to fight."
...
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.
-
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."
*******************************************************
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"
-
My site was hacked into last week. My service provider has spent a week trying to recover my website. Unfortunately, a lot of is lost. The hacker was obviously aware that I was away for ten days. I do have a hidden copy of my website with friends and so hopefully I will be eventually able to make the original site available. Clearly, I am upsetting someone .
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.
-
Myra you may be interested ......
They posted 2 then 1 for some reason...??
B...
I am interested Bernice, thanks.
Wow, what a pack of lies.
-
".....In 2005, a secret internal CIA history of the Bay of Pigs was finally released to the public. The 300-page document contained proof that Bissell concealed the operation's bleak prospects from Kennedy when he briefed him about it for the first time shortly after JFK's election. The internal history quoted a CIA memo dated November 15, 1960, that was prepared for Bissell before the Kennedy briefing. In it, the agency conceded that "our concept...to secure a beach with airstrip is now seen to be unachievable, except as joint Agency/DOD action." In other words, "The CIA knew that it couldn't accomplish this type of overt paramilitary mission without direct Pentagon participation--and committed that to paper and then went ahead and tried it anyway," explained Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive, the George Washington University-based research group that made public the CIA document. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Bissell informed Kennedy of the CIA's bleak assessment."
Again, it would have been illegal for Kennedy to use the military for a covert operation, yet the CIA seemed to expect it according to the document Talbot quotes. I sure would like to see this document...and/or even know its name. I wonder what Talbot's footnotes say about it.
Myra, there is no mention in Talbot's footnotes; just the reference cited in the text above. Here's a couple of pages from the website:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publicati...read/bpread.htm
http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl?in...ery=bay+of+pigs
Thank you very much Mike.
"Bay of Pigs Declassified
The Secret CIA Report"
Has anyone here read this document?
On edit:
"C.I.A. Bares Its Bungling in Report on Bay of Pigs Invasion
February 22, 1998, Sunday
By TIM WEINER (NYT); Foreign Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section 1, Page 6, Column 3, 1450 words
Correction Appended
DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Central Intelligence Agency's report on 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, one of most secret documents of cold war, is released to National Security Archive under Freedom of Information Act; report lays blame for disastrous invasion of Cuba on agency's own institutional arrogance, ignorance and incompetence; document also cautions those who would use CIA to overthrow enemies, saying that job belongs to Pentagon and its broad arsenal of military forces; report was written by then-CIA Inspector Gen Lyman Kirkpatrick
Correction: February 23, 1998, Monday An article yesterday about the Central Intelligence Agency's internal report on the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, and a front-page summary of the article in some copies, misstated the death toll among the invaders. Of about 1,500 commandos, 114 died, not nearly 1,500, and 1,189 were captured; the rest either never landed or made their way back to safety."
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...nce%20Agency%20
Wasn't an intelligent president like Kennedy a bad role model?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Tag, you're it ToshASsss