Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
Myra, I've met Ed a couple of times. He knows more about Johnson--and his possible involvement--than just about anybody. He is a bit over the top, however. He really hates Johnson. I mean REALLY hates Johnson.
...
To know Johnson is to hate him. What's not to hate?
Myra, I've met Ed a couple of times. He knows more about Johnson--and his possible involvement--than just about anybody. He is a bit over the top, however. He really hates Johnson. I mean REALLY hates Johnson.As far as Johnson bribing his way onto the ticket, that's doubtful. The more likely story is one you'll find in the history books. These indicate that JFK offered the second position to Johnson with the expectation Johnson would refuse. Johnson was, after all, the Senate's majority leader, an extremely powerful position. If JFK hadn't offered the position to LBJ it could have made for a difficult presidency. So he made the offer, and was shocked when LBJ said yes. Reportedly, LBJ was talked into saying yes by some of the leading lights of the party--"it's best for the party, etc,." There are some reports that RFK visited LBJ the next day to try and get him to change his mind, but that LBJ refused, and that this was a factor in their mutual contempt, but that's neither here nor there.
...
Pat, I find it more likely that Bobby Baker persuaded LBJ to take the VP slot because he knew that climbing over a dead president was the only way his southern Senator boss would ever be president. I think vile ol' Senator Kerr was on board with it too.
Agree that it's very unlikely that he bribed his way onto the ticket.
...What is clear is that, with the vice-presidency, LBJ was given a few extra perks. Kennedy allowed Johnson a measure of control over all Federal business in Texas, and over the Navy. Two consecutive secretaries of the Navy were Johnson cronies with ties to the oil industry--Connally and Korth. Both would eventually be exposed in corruption scandals. It is LBJ's close connection to Navy, along with Oswald's connection to the Marines (a division of the Navy) that leads some to wonder if Oswald wasn't working for the Office of Naval Intelligence (basically the CIA of the Navy). Unfortunately, the Pentagon's files on Oswald were "routinely destroyed" or some such nonsense. so we' may never know.
Mmm, interesting. Wasn't aware of that possible link.
-
I wanted to share some photos of the Life magazine that Harry was kind enough to send.
For those who read Battling Wall Street, it's really interesting to see the letter exchange, between President Kennedy & David Rockefeller, that Gibson described. Just as Gibson said Rockefeller was pushing--gently at this point--for adherence to the IMF, so rich guys can be loan sharks to poor nations without the gov't interfering and giving loans with humane and reasonable terms. But the subject was just touched on, not emphasized. It was all very general.
Rockefeller was concerned with the price of gold, of course, since his family had the inside knowledge to get out of the stock market in 1929 and put their money into gold (as did Joe Kennedy).
If anyone wants more details let me know.
I'd sure like to see later examples of Rockefeller pushing for his desired economic policies; supposedly he got more heated.
Has anyone seen these later communications?
-
Myra:
My opinion is that the brain was removed at Walter Reed and handed over to RFK. But before it was, any bullets or fragments of bullets that could have been removed were.
But the autopsy photos of A brain were taken afterward at Bethesda Gil.
I guess that's part of chain of events that makes the "autopsy" and "evidence"--like the photos--so clearly bogus.
And it's hard to build a hypothesis around bogus evidence...
-
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%...20Brussell.html
"Three weeks after the Watergate break-in, while the establishment press was calling it "a caper" and "a third-rate burglary," Mae Brussell completed a manuscript titled "Why Was Martha Mitchell Kidnapped?" She named names—John Mitchell, L. Patrick Gray, Richard Nixon, the FBI, the CIA—and I published her first by-lined article in The Realist.
"The CIA that killed President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy," she wrote, "did a test case in Greece on canceling elections. Andreas Papandreou, often compared with John Kennedy, appeared to have a good chance of winning the Greek election in 1967. The U.S. Army, the CIA and government agencies helped replace their elections with a coup d'etat. . . . The significance of the Watergate affair is that every element essential for a political coup in the United States was assembled at the time of the arrests."
Mae Brussell contends that Nixon's own Watergate plumbers, and the entire intelligence network they represented, were prepared to overthrow Nixon whenever it was deemed necessary by the true powers. Ultimately, she believes, the same men who brought Nixon to power via the Kennedy assassinations were also pulling the strings at Watergate."
Myra, the same guys who backed the Greek coup backed Nixon. The CIA was pumping money into Greece to insure the country didn't go socialist. This money ended up in the hands of right-wing generals, the leader of whom had been on the CIA's payroll for years. Then..coincidence???...Nixon re-emerged on the political scene with the financial backing of a wealthy Greek-American, Thomas Pappas. In order to please his Greek-American backers, Nixon put the most prominent Greek-American, Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew, on the ticket. This is pretty much accepted history. What isn't as well known or established is that the money funding Nixon's campaign originally came from the CIA. I'm not sure if there's sufficient proof of this.
While looking through a book on Greece from the early 70's, however, I did come across a reference to a large public works project--I think it was a dam--that was being built by Greek-American Thomas Pappas. As we now all know, public works projects are quite over-priced, and a lot of the money gets kicked back to corrupt politicians. The thought occurred that the U.S. was funding the Greek government, the government was paying Pappas, and Pappas was kicking the money back to Nixon, who'd arranged the funding for the Greeks. A big circle jerk, at the expense of democracy. Dick Cheney learned by the older Dick's side.
Well that sure is interesting Pat, and frankly I didn't know any of it. Do you think it is related to Watergate?
I don't think these events led to Watergate, but they had an impact on the timing. When the Dems started looking into Watergate, they knew from the beginning it could lead to Nixon's resignation. This would have led to Agnew becoming president, something even Nixon wanted to avoid. Many believe that the leading Dems, including Ted Kennedy, worked out a deal. They told Nixon they'd lay off the investigation as long as Nixon dumped Agnew and replaced him with someone palatable. This would explain why, according to Agnew, Nixon himself was the major factor in his resignation. Agnew kept looking for a vote of confidence from Nixon, or some public statement of support, during his corruption investigation, with none forthcoming. He concluded the Justice Department was being guided by Nixon (Nixon secretly guided much of the early Watergate investigation.) Anyhow, they offered Agnew a deal--go quietly and there will be no jail--and he took the offer. Nixon replaced him with Gerry Ford, a loyal Republican but also a longtime congressman with friends on both sides of the aisle. Everyone involved agreed that Ford was not necessarily the best choice but that he was the most palatable choice.
I see Pat, thank you.
Would you mind expanding a little on your comment that "Nixon secretly guided much of the early Watergate investigation"?
-
Good day, Myra.
I had no idea my name was going to appear in this article.
Mel posted a number of times on alt.assassination.jfk, and then disappeared.
Do we "associate" anyone mentioned in an author's article as being a supporter of that author's research?
Of course not.
I'm more interested in whether folks think the fellow in the other image looks like Sirhan Sirhan.
Chow for now
PF
Oh sorry Peter. I was focusing too much on the "credit" comment and totally missed your point.
Ayton clearly had an agenda and did not let reality intrude. It was a shameless piece of... writing.
-
http://www.olneydailymail.com/articles/200...xt#blogcomments
"Author pokes holes in official Kennedy theory
By Kevin Ryden
Published: Monday, May 7, 2007 3:03 PM CDT
...
LBJ
While the Mafia, CIA, Russians, Cubans and any number of groups could have killed Kennedy, Tatro said, they could not get Kennedy's car to drive only 11 mph without a bubbletop through Dealey Plaza in Dallas.
That came from within LBJ's powerful inner circle and some of the Secret Service, according to Tatro, who did not have kind words about the 36th president of the United States.
“He was one of the most amoral human beings who ever lived,” he said. “I think he's second only to Hitler.”
...
Johnson was friends with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and had information about Kennedy's womanizing and other issues and bribed his way into being on the ticket, Tatro said.
He said notes from Kennedy's former secretary, Eleanor Lincoln, indicated that JFK wanted to drop LBJ from the ticket.
“So, there's your motive,” he said.
Trip to Texas
On April 23, 1963, Johnson went on Texas radio to announce that Kennedy would be coming to the state in the fall. Neither Kennedy or the White House ever announced that, Tatro said.
The only reason Kennedy decided to go, according to Tatro, was to attend a ceremonial dinner for an ailing Texas congressman.
Jack Valenti, who died last Thursday, invited Kennedy and was a close and loyal friend to Johnson. “That's how they got him (Kennedy) there,” Tatro said.
Valenti married Johnson's secretary, with whom Johnson had an affair, Tatro claimed. Valenti's daughter ended up tall “with big ears,” he said, alleging that Valenti's daughter was, in fact, Johnson's.
...
The route the motorcade took in Dealey Plaza was surrounded by buildings and trees, he emphasized, something that bothered Jerry Bruno, who scouted the area for security for Kennedy.
Texas Gov. John Connally, another close friend to Johnson who was sitting next to Kennedy in the motorcade and was shot, pushed for the route Bruno did not like, according to Tatro. Expressing his displeasure to Bruno's advice, Connally apparently stated, “This is not how we do it in Texas,” Tatro said, later alleging that Connally's job was to “sucker Kennedy to get (him) to Texas.”
Bruno was asked by the White House to come back to Washington, D.C., and another aide was sent to smooth over relations with Connally.
That man, Tatro said, was Bill Moyers, who is now a famous journalist and public commentator. “One of the greatest men of all time. Hogwash,” Tatro said sarcastically.
When Moyers was questioned by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Tatro said he was “less than clear on all the details” and could not recall if he had ever even visited Dallas.
...
Those who believe Oswald was the lone gunman have the funds and technology to make their point, Tatro said, adding that people like him have limited resources.
Jack Ruby
After Ruby was convicted of killing Oswald, he wrote a lot of letters from prison.
In one of those letters, Tatro said Ruby wrote, “If you hear honking of horns, it will be me. They will want my blood.”
Tatro played an audio recording of the newscast in which Oswald was shot. In the recording, one hard honk can be heard, followed by a soft honk and then the gunshot that killed Oswald.
Tatro believes Ruby was “trying to squeal.”
Tatro noted a disparaging quote by Ruby about Johnson: “Compared to Lyndon Johnson, I am a saint.”
Ruby also made many telephone calls while in prison to powerful individuals within organized crime, but the Warren Commission never investigated, Tatro said.
In the late 1970s, the Washington Post published an editorial which stated that two shooters who did not know each other could have killed Kennedy.
Tatro downplayed the editorial and said it showed “how stupid” the Washington Post believed people were.
The Warren Commission
...
The Canadian government also destroyed documents about Oswald, Tatro said after explaining that he tried to obtain that information in 1990.
“If the guy did it alone and is a nut, what are you destroying this stuff for?” Tatro asked.
Former President Gerald Ford was a member of the commission. In 1966, he wrote a book, “Portrait of the Assassin,” which explained that Oswald acted alone.
Tatro said Ford had the book published regardless of knowing that all Warren Commission members were barred from profiting from their knowledge. The book also contained top-secret information, which Tatro said Ford did not have permission to print.
“That's treason,” he said.
Ford was never charged with any wrongdoing.
Popular but canceled
In 2003, Tatro was part of a History Channel program called “The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Guilty Men.” Part of the program discussed Johnson's alleged involvement.
According to Tatro, it was the History Channel's highest-rated show ever and made more than $2 million in DVD sales.
After the program concluded, Johnson's former advisors, including Valenti and Moyers, demanded the show never be played on the cable network again, Tatro said.
The show was removed from the History Channel's programming.
Kevin Ryden can be reached at kryden@olneydailymail.com."
---
Has anyone read anything about LBJ bribing his way onto the ticket in 1960? Doesn't really makes sense to me. Kennedy had plenty of money.
Some of the info is new to me and I don't know if it's true.
-
This film implies that the entrance described by Kilduff was a small entrance leading to a large exit on the back of the head, and is therefore deceptive. 1) There is no mention of a large exit by Kilduff. 2) There is no mention of a small entrance by ANY of the Parkland witnesses, who are supposedly so reliable.
For these reasons, I concluded that the Parkland doctors were indeed mistaken as to the exact location of the large head wound. During his treatment, Kennedy's feet were elevated above his head. This placed the top of his head at the location normally occupied by the back of his head. When viewing upside down items, people receive visual information, and then rotate it in their minds before identifying the spacial relationships. We are really bad at this, and rotation errors are common.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus: I would disagree with most of that comment. Just because Kilduff didn't mention an exit wound, doesn't mean that it didn't exist. It's entirely possible that he was repeating what Dr. Burkley told him and that Burkley simply never mentioned the exit wound.
I find it hard to believe that medical experts could mistake the locations of the wounds because they couldn't tell the top of his head from the back.
Then we have autopsy photo F8 which shows exactly where the large exit wound was.
In addition, Dr. Charles Crenshaw DID see a wound of entry, he called it a "tangential" shot connected with the rear exit wound and he located it precisely where Kilduff had indicated.
I guess I'm very confused about the status of any remaining brain tissue.
If I'm remembering correctly:
-Supposedly about 1/3 of the brain was missing at Parkland, blown out by the bullet(s).
-Supposedly 100% of the brain was missing at the Bethesda autopsy. They describe the skull as an empty cracked egg shell.
So, even though I know the autopsy photos are fakes, I still don't understand the presence of the brain tissue visible in the photo.
-Then supposedly the brain disappeared from the national archives, reportedly taken by RFK.
Where did the brain tissue come from to put in the national archives if it was gone at the autopsy?
-
I hate to hear Jim Garrison criticized by any knowledgable assassination researcher. Garrison is one of my all-time heroes. Consider the array of powerful forces alligned against him. Consider the unprecedented lack of cooperation he received from governmental agencies at every level. Consider the unnatural, untimely and obviously suspicious deaths of some of his most important witnesses. When else have governors from several different states refused to extradite witnesses who were crucial to a district attorney's case? As for Sheridan, Garrison supposedly wired Perry Russo and recorded this "reporter" threatening and attempting to bribe his witness. I'm assuming these recordings are real and exist; if so, that seals the case against Sheridan. He was not "loyal' to RFK or the Kennedy family; he was an active agent in stopping Garrison from exposing the truth about the assassination of a sitting U.S. president. He was also not a legitimate "reporter" in any sense of the word, and NBC permitting him to masquerade as such brands them guilty of being an active participant in the coverup as well.
I feel exactly the same way. I hate to see one of the few true heroes disparaged.
-
It seems that Bruce Willis is taking an interest in the JFK assassination.
Hollywood actor Bruce Willis has warned former U.S. President John F. Kennedy's killers are still at large, insisting Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. Oswald was, according to four government investigations, solely responsible for the 1963 assassination of Kennedy in Dallas. Oswald was shot dead two days after the murder on his way to Dallas County Jail.
However, Willis insists it's likely that Oswald was made a scapegoat for the assassination, telling Vanity Fair, "They still haven't caught the guy that killed Kennedy. I'll get killed for saying this, but I'm pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form. The entire government of the United States was co-opted.
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/20..._s_killers_are_
You might want to consolidate threads John.
-
Pat,
Like most of the other celebrated music stars of the '60s, the Beatles were producing lots of socially relevant music at that time, and the white album was probably (imho) their masterpiece. However, there is a big difference between protest songs and advocating murder and/or racial war. My point was that Bugliosi formulated a ridiculous, contrived explanation for the Tate-LaBianca murders which unjustifiably revolved around the lyrics from the white album. I think his absurd theory doesn't speak well for him, and makes his dishonest defense of the indefensible lone-assassin fairy tale a bit more understandable. I don't find Bugliosi the least bit credible.
You make a really good point that Bugliosi was indulging in his own conspiracy theory in his book. I haven't read it so I was curious. It's doubtful that I'll read anything by that guy now.
-
New article by Mel Ayton published on History News Network.
http://hnn.us/articles/38496.html
Ayton correctly gives me credit for discovering the image of a woman in a green polka dot dress in the pantry area.
However Ayton ignored another set of pictures I sent him that show another lady in a black dress with white spots. She is standing next to a man who looks identical to Sirhan Sirhan, and who does not look like the man identified by Mel as resembling Sirhan Sirhan.
I published two of these photos on my website last year and posted the urls to this alt.assassination.jfk, a newsgroup I moderate with John McAdams.
http://www.toronto.hm/rfk2.html
The upper photo shows this unidentified woman with a pug-like nose and wearing a black dress with white spots. The lower photo shows the man who bears an uncanny resemblance to Sirhan Sirhan just above the left shoulder of a man in a striped red suit jacket.
In the lower photo, just the top of the head and hair of the unidentified woman are shown. I have additional images of this man and woman taken a few seconds before and after these photos which do reveal the unidentified woman with the pug nose and black hair is standing next to the Sirhan Sirhan look-alike.
I'm not sure why Mel Ayton decided to ignore these other photos, but he does note that a witness did see Sirhan Sirhan standing next to a woman with a pug nose.
<quote on>
Pantry eyewitness Vincent DiPierro said he saw, “…one girl [during the night] ... that was in there [the pantry] that night with a 'pug-nose'….. and dark hair.” DiPierro said she had been standing in the area near Kennedy when the shooting occurred and that she had also been standing near the tray stacker where Sirhan crouched before he began shooting. “There was so much confusion that night,” DiPierro said.
At Sirhan's trial DiPierro testified as to what he observed. Defense lawyer Grant Cooper asked him what caused him to notice Sirhan. DiPierro replied, “There was a girl standing in the area [of the pantry]” and this caused him to notice Sirhan. He said the girl was pretty and when shown a photograph of Kennedy campaign worker Valerie Schulte confirmed this was the girl in question. It became obvious that in the chaos that followed the shooting - with the added distractions of camera flashes and television lighting that filled the pantry - that DiPierro had been led to mistake the color of Schulte's hair (blonde) and clothes; Schulte's dress was actually green with yellow polka dots. The same mischaracterization of the dress was probably made by Darnell Johnson who claimed to see the woman in the pantry with a man and also in the Embassy Room both before and after RFK was shot. Johnson's description of the girl is not in contradiction to the positioning of Valerie Schulte who had been standing in the pantry with a man when the shots were fired.
<quote off>
Did DiPierro mistakenly confirm that Valerie Schulte was the woman he saw? In his original description, he described the woman as having a "pug nose" and "black hair". The unidentified woman in the photo I published on my website last year matches DiPierro's original description.
Ayton claims it is "obvious" that DiPierro was confused by the "chaos" and "lights" and misidentified the color of her hair and her dress. He also claims that another witness named Darnell Johnson "probably" made the same misidentification as DiPierro. Johnson saw the woman in the pantry and the Embassy Room. The unidentified woman standing next to Sirhan Sirhan as shown in images I captured from film footage does indeed have black hair and a pug nose.
Again, I have no idea why Mel Ayton ignored these images. Instead he makes the claim that DiPierro and Johnson were simply confused and misidentified Valerie Schulte. It is also clear that the woman with the pug nose and dark hair is not the unidentified "pretty girl" that Ayton discusses in his article.
Peter Fokes
Do you actually want "credit" from this guy? His piece struck me as propaganda. Why would you want to be associated with it?
-
So frustrating...
Can anyone get the link at the bottom of this page to play the streaming video interview between Charlie Rose and David Talbot?
http://www.salon.com/plus/index.html
I just get a "page not found" error with either speed selection. Argh.
On edit:
Then when I go to the Charlie Rose site I can't find Talbot listed as a guest tonight.
http://www.charlierose.com/home
I dunno what the heck's going on...
And I can't swear.
It's all very frustrating.
-
Oh yeah, definitely check out Salon.
Media/Author events here:
http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/events.html
Monday May 7
CBS Early Show
...
Charlie Rose Show, PBS/TV -- check listings for local airtimes.
Writeup from CBS Early Show.
If anyone finds a video or audio file please let us know.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/07/...6164.shtml#ccmm
NEW YORK, May 7, 2007
"(CBS) Four decades after the Kennedy presidency, Salon.com founder David Talbot has written a haunting book called "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years." It brings to life one of the most tumultuous periods in American history and examines questions that remain unanswered to this day.
...
The book begins with then FBI director J. Edgar Hoover calling RFK to tell him his brother had been shot. Talbot said Hoover expressed little sympathy.
"Very cold — 'The president's been shot,' click. Almost like that," Talbot said. "He calls back later 20 minutes later — 'The president's dead' — almost with a sense of pleasure in his voice, according to Nicholas (Katzenbach), the associate attorney general under Bobby. This is what Bobby told him later. So his world caved in for Bobby at this point. He was — he was the moon that orbited around his brother. And so suddenly this — the center of his universe is gone."
Even after RFK claimed to accept the findings of the Warren Commission, the book portrays him as the first assassination conspiracy theorist. Neither Kennedy brother had a shortage of enemies. RFK relentlessly pursued the mafia and he was suspicious of the CIA for their role in the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion in which President Kennedy tried to overthrow Cuba's communist government. The mafia, CIA and Cuban exiles created a triumvirate that deeply concerned Robert Kennedy. Havana, after all, was a hot spot for gambling before Fidel Castro took over and the mafia was angry, Talbot said.
"They were furious with the Kennedys because Bobby was leading the most aggressive crackdown on organized crime never before seen in this country," Talbot said. "So the CIA was working with some of these cut-throat characters already. And Bobby looked at that area as the source of the plot against his brother. Because Cuba could become the Iraq of its day. That was the center of the cold war tensions — very volatile area. The Kennedys refused after the bay of pigs to invade and alienated many people within their own government as a result of this."
Talbot spent three years on the book and said it was an emotional experience because he spoke to people who devoted their lives to the Kennedy brothers and saw those two men as the way to change the world — and at least for a little while, they did, Talbot said.
"Tears would come to their eyes as we talked about those days," he said. "And, you know, I think the country misses that kind of idealism today. When you listen to a speech like JFK delivered near the end of his life, the peace speech at American University where he said, you know, we all inhabit the same small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's future and we're all mortal. Imagine American leaders saying that today about our enemy? That we can all live in peace together.""
-
I would describe that as "where".
Hi Gil,
I read your post with a sense of wonderment last night prior to going to bed. It ran around in my head and the only thought that stuck was that you believed Connally to be involved.
I've checked in on the forum today and see you've asked about Connally carrying a pistol. Is this a query in pursuit of "pointing yourself in that direction, towards the truth"??
Thanks
Gary
Well, that would sure explain some edits to the Z-film..
-
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/..._6_-_Transcript
"REX: I'd like to switch forward because there's been some more recent news in the 43-year-old murder, and you've been involved in some of the news. Shane O'Sullivan, of BBC Newsnight, last fall put out a story that three high-level CIA officials were present at the Ambassador Hotel when RFK was killed. You and Washington Post reporter Jeff Morley then started tracking down the story. Can you tell us about that?
DAVID: Yeah, I think it's a fascinating episode in Kennedy research. As you say, a young filmmaker named Shane O'Sullivan went on the air - on the BBC - in November, with a startling report alleging that David Morales, George Joannides, and a fellow named Gordon Campbell - and the first two have long been connected in research circles to Dallas - were caught on camera at the Ambassador Hotel the night Bobby was killed in Los Angeles. He showed clips of news footage and still photographs that were taken that night and identified them as these three men, three CIA officials who were connected, again, to the Agency's secret war on Castro. Well, this was a kind of "holy xxxx" moment, because if that was the case, then you're connecting the same people who might have JFK to the people who might have killed RFK.
So I was in the finishing stages of my book, but I felt this had to be looked into before I sent my book off to the publisher, so Jeff Morley and I got an assignment from The New Yorker to look into it. With the New Yorker's resources, we were able to criss-cross he country, going from Miami to Northern California, Arizona and Washington and New England, and talked to a number of people to pin down whether or not these three CIA agents were indeed there. Well, unfortunately for Shane, and those who believed the story, we found that it simply wasn't true. Gordon Campbell - the person he identified as Gordon Campbell - turned out to be a U.S. Army official who had been attached to the CIA's JMWAVE station in Miami, but he had died in 1962, so of course it was impossible for him to show up in 1968 at the Ambassador.
We also found, finally - and I'm actually looking at these photographs right now - excellent photographs taken of David Morales around 1968. We've only had a very kind of rudimentary photo of him for the most part, that was taken out of a Cuban newspaper - and it's even in my book because I wasn't able to get these other photos in time - and so we weren't able to really get a good sense of what David Morales looked like until now. And if you compare these new photos that we now have in our possession - Jeff Morley and I, we've seen four photos of Morales from that period - it's clearly not the man in the news footage at the Ambassador Hotel. The physical characteristics are just completely different. People who knew him well say the same thing when they look at Shane O'Sullivan's report and these photos.
The same is true of George Joannides. We also found good photos of Joannides taken around the same time, and again, it's simply not the man caught on camera at the Ambassador.
On the other hand, David Morales has told - before he died - he told his attorney Robert Walton, and he told a good friend, who I did interview again, that he was in Dallas and Los Angeles at the times of the assassinations. He went further with his attorney and told him that he played a role in it. He did tell his friend Reuben Carbajal, who again, I interviewed, that the CIA killed JFK. So it wasn't complete lunacy for Shane O'Sullivan to assume that this might have been David Morales caught on camera. We have other evidence that Morales was connected to these assassinations, but these photographs or news footage that Shane used in his films simply don't corroborate it.
REX: It would certainly be the height of brazenness for three high-level CIA officials to be in the ballroom while planning that murder."
-
Rex Bradford's interview with David Talbot is on the Mary Ferrell website.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/..._6_-_Transcript
Seems McNamara told Talbot that JFK always wanted his epitaph to be "He Kept the Peace." Wonder why McNamara did not broadcast this at the time of the Tonkin Gulf resolution and why McNamara allowed himself to become a tool for the warmongers.
The Auschwitz defense, I suppose. Just following orders.
Great article. Thanks for the link.
Thought this part was interesting:
"REX: I'd like to switch forward because there's been some more recent news in the 43-year-old murder, and you've been involved in some of the news. Shane O'Sullivan, of BBC Newsnight, last fall put out a story that three high-level CIA officials were present at the Ambassador Hotel when RFK was killed. You and Washington Post reporter Jeff Morley then started tracking down the story. Can you tell us about that?
DAVID: Yeah, I think it's a fascinating episode in Kennedy research. As you say, a young filmmaker named Shane O'Sullivan went on the air - on the BBC - in November, with a startling report alleging that David Morales, George Joannides, and a fellow named Gordon Campbell - and the first two have long been connected in research circles to Dallas - were caught on camera at the Ambassador Hotel the night Bobby was killed in Los Angeles. He showed clips of news footage and still photographs that were taken that night and identified them as these three men, three CIA officials who were connected, again, to the Agency's secret war on Castro. Well, this was a kind of "holy xxxx" moment, because if that was the case, then you're connecting the same people who might have JFK to the people who might have killed RFK.
So I was in the finishing stages of my book, but I felt this had to be looked into before I sent my book off to the publisher, so Jeff Morley and I got an assignment from The New Yorker to look into it. With the New Yorker's resources, we were able to criss-cross he country, going from Miami to Northern California, Arizona and Washington and New England, and talked to a number of people to pin down whether or not these three CIA agents were indeed there. Well, unfortunately for Shane, and those who believed the story, we found that it simply wasn't true. Gordon Campbell - the person he identified as Gordon Campbell - turned out to be a U.S. Army official who had been attached to the CIA's JMWAVE station in Miami, but he had died in 1962, so of course it was impossible for him to show up in 1968 at the Ambassador.
We also found, finally - and I'm actually looking at these photographs right now - excellent photographs taken of David Morales around 1968. We've only had a very kind of rudimentary photo of him for the most part, that was taken out of a Cuban newspaper - and it's even in my book because I wasn't able to get these other photos in time - and so we weren't able to really get a good sense of what David Morales looked like until now. And if you compare these new photos that we now have in our possession - Jeff Morley and I, we've seen four photos of Morales from that period - it's clearly not the man in the news footage at the Ambassador Hotel. The physical characteristics are just completely different. People who knew him well say the same thing when they look at Shane O'Sullivan's report and these photos.
The same is true of George Joannides. We also found good photos of Joannides taken around the same time, and again, it's simply not the man caught on camera at the Ambassador.
On the other hand, David Morales has told - before he died - he told his attorney Robert Walton, and he told a good friend, who I did interview again, that he was in Dallas and Los Angeles at the times of the assassinations. He went further with his attorney and told him that he played a role in it. He did tell his friend Reuben Carbajal, who again, I interviewed, that the CIA killed JFK. So it wasn't complete lunacy for Shane O'Sullivan to assume that this might have been David Morales caught on camera. We have other evidence that Morales was connected to these assassinations, but these photographs or news footage that Shane used in his films simply don't corroborate it.
REX: It would certainly be the height of brazenness for three high-level CIA officials to be in the ballroom while planning that murder."
-
Think of the impact that Leno and Letterman could have if they tried. Every night they have some actor or actress on to promote a new movie. In fact, that's all those shows are anymore, programs to promote Hollywood movies. So they have these stars on to conduct boring conversations about their dogs and cats before showing the movie clips that they're there for. Why not get these people to express what they think about unanwered questions of 9/11, or E. Howard Hunt's confession, or anything to get people to THINK about such issues? Viewers would be all ears, whether agreeing or not. But I guess Leno and Letterman would soon be brought back in line or be out of jobs.
I've consistently read that Phil Donohue's show was canceled prior to the Iraq invasion because it gave viewers an alternative to propaganda.
-
But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the
official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)
And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.
Not one.
When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based
understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.
Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."
But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.
The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.
Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.
John
While I agree in part, I also think that celebrities can have a powerful affect. For a few months now I have been thinking of writing to Oprah and asking her to do a show on MLK. Have as guests MLK's sons (who believe in conspiracy) and Judge Joe Brown, who KNOWS there was a conspiracy. Add to the mix James Earl Ray's atty, Dr. Pepper. I think this could make a great show, but I wonder if Oprah has the guts to do it.
Dawn
Well instead of just THINKING about doing this I just did it. I am sure she gets tons of email with show ideas...but it does not hurt to try, so I did. I choose MLK because she has said many times how she admired him. Surely she does not believe the media cover story. But you just never know, so I also suggested a book. Phil Melanson's "The Martin Luther King Assassination". (It's a real page turner too!).
Dawn
Good going Dawn. Focusing on Dr King's murder makes sense for so many reasons, including the fact that the case is largely solved thanks to Dr Pepper, as described in his book An Act of State.
-
But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the
official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)
And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.
Not one.
When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based
understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.
Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."
But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.
The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.
Bruce is right, what he says doesn't mean jack ****. The 911 'Truthers' think Charlie Sheen is the bees knees because he advocates their position, big wow. It isn't celebrities that we need on our side, but rather intellectuals and historians.
John
It isn't mutually exclusive. We can actually have historians AND celebs speaking the truth and the more the better.
What we need is critical mass; the more the better.
The fact is when Bruce Willis says something it gets space in a newspaper.
I'll bet few people here can get the same result when they speak out.
-
Great material Paul. Thank you. I had no idea what Halberstam was all about. I'd planned to read some of his books, so you saved me from wasting time. Now I'll look for Warren Hinckle instead.
I was thinking about the similarities with Sy Hersh as I was reading your info then you started quoting him too. Guess he and Halberstam had a lot in common.
And thanks for the info about Robert Lovett BK. I'd never heard of him but he has my attention now. I was wondering how a piece of work like McGeorge Bundy ended up in President Kennedy's staff.
-
But I doubt Willis' views are based on a careful study of the official evidence. (Don't forget: the best evidence against the
official Warren Commision theory is their own documentary record and files.)
And, note that he says "the guy". The guy? There were shots from more than one direction and that alone, equals two shooters.
Not one.
When the public sees a celebrity talk off the cuff about such a complex historical event, it is easy to then couple our research based
understanding with the Bruce Willises of the world and therefore dismiss the topic.
Yeah that sorta leaped out, when he said "guy."
But if a giant celeb is willing to stand up and state the basic truth, even if it's not perfect, I'll take it.
The media is more likely to publish something a celeb says.
-
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05052007/gossi...ic_pagesix_.htm
"May 5, 2007 -- ADD Bruce Willis to those who don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating JFK. "They still haven't caught the guy that killed [President] Kennedy," the tough-guy star tells June's Vanity Fair. "I'll get killed for saying this, but I'm pretty sure those guys are still in power, in some form. The entire government of the United States was co-opted. But, he adds, "I don't think my opinion means jack [bleep], because I'm an actor. Why do actors think their opinions mean more because you act?""
-
On the evening before the assassination, Clint Murchison, the Dallas oil millionaire, threw a big party. In attendance were HL Hunt, Richard Nixon, and J Edgar Hoover. At the end of the party, a private meeting is held and Lyndon Johnson is told that he will become President the following day.
Am I the only one who thinks that the story about the party, or at least some attendees, has been largely discredited?
Seems like I've read that both LBJ and Nixon were photographed elsewhere and could not have been at Murchison's.
-
I think the third tramp was probably a guy named Gus Abrams. He did look enough like Hunt, though, that Ed Lansdale had to go get a close look.if Hunt had been so F*****g smart, then how did he manage to get implicated in the Watergate break in? Hmmm? Because he wanted to be caught? Because he was "set up?"
Yes, he was set up by James McCord. Unless we're supposed to believe that it was McCord who was not very smart, indeed abysmally stupid.
Ron, Do you have an opinion on what Watergate was essentially about?
Good summary of presentation by Ed Tatro
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Thank you Ron AND Mark.
I've been wanting to read Caro's LBJ books anyway; I think he has the right perspective on the man (i.e., "what's not to hate?"). So I'll have to get going.