Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
QUOTE:
Are you guys talking about soccer, cricket, or badminton? I thought that the World Cup was soccer ("football"), but maybe there's a World Cup for everything? You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but to us Americans "football" means only one thing. The real thing! And a "cricket" is something that chirps.
.......
I always said that American lacked culture. Cricket is a great game and is nearly as good as soccer...
Thanks for the link.
UNQUOTE:
Don't forget the ever popular LAWN BOWLING. When I was in London in the late 80s, only two
channels were available on the hotel tv. One channel was devoted entirely to "Lawn Bowling
Championships" for more than eight hours.
Yawn.
Jack
So at the risk of demonstrating lack of culture and refinement on the part of all Americans I have to ask...
were there actually spectators at the "Lawn Bowling Championships"?
-
...
Remember Communications theorists have been working hard since 1945-- see Christopher Simpson's excellent book, THE SCIENCE OF COERCION: COMMUNICATION RESEARCH AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH, 1945-1960. Yummy!
Thanks for the book recommendation Nathaniel.
Always lookin' for good ones, esp about propaganda.
-
So everyone knows what Jack is talking about:Seldom have I seen a group of such dishonest people.
The photo which has the anomalous rectangular object HAS NO BOOTPRINTS
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED during the three earlier photos, as
claimed. NONE. REPEAT NONE. Not a one. NONE. They say there are bootprints,
but there ARE NONE.
Those who claim that there are footprints are blind or lying. I don't know
why I bother, but tomorrow I will post evidence of this. Tonight I do not
have access to the computer from which I can post images.
Jack
And this is the photo in question (Jack posted a cropped version that cut out most of the prints):
And the mod said:
Jack - Kevin has clearly shown you were mistaken about the bootprints; will you correct yourself?...
Well it doesn't seem like Evan was speaking as a moderator, it seems like he was speaking as a forum member participating in the debate. When someone volunteers to be a moderator they don't forfeit their right to participate in discussions, do they?
-
...
Have I mentioned before that I'm a huge fan of their fair and balanced approach to political reportage? Well, not yet but I soon will be. (if the price is right)
No no no Mark. Their motto is "Fairly Balanced."
That should clear things up.
-
Are you guys talking about soccer, cricket, or badminton? I thought that the World Cup was soccer ("football"), but maybe there's a World Cup for everything? You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but to us Americans "football" means only one thing. The real thing! And a "cricket" is something that chirps.
Cricket is a game perhaps a little bit similar to your baseball (baseball being incidentally a game played exclusively by school girls in England and called "rounders" http://www.nra-rounders.co.uk/).
Cricket however tends to be played by men and is an infinitely tactically more complex and rewarding game - I urge you to become acquainted with it http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/
It's a good time to get involved, Ron.
The main complaint against cricket used to be the unspeakable tedium. A group of 22 men, wearing whites, did essentially the same leisurely thing on a flat grassy surface, rather slowly, for several days on end.
Things changed a bit in the 1980s, when Australian media moguls got involved. They made the players wear coloured shirts and trousers, and shortened matches to a single day. That made it more suitable for the era of colour TV and couch potatoes with relatively short attention spans. Advertising revenue boomed.
Now the mafia are involved, I expect cricket will become popular in North America, Italy, Israel and Russia. This will do wonders for the game. The action will become even faster. An entire test series could be over in a few moments.
Cricket and terrorism compliment each other perfectly. Without terror, cricket is simply too boring for a worldwide audience. Without cricket, terrorim is uncouth.
Expect to see Mark Stapleton commentating soon on Fox TV, sharing his expertise with the masses on previously obscure topics such as false flag ops against the umpires, faked action replays, the market in match fixing futures, explosive balls and the controlled demolition of English cricket.
Boffo post Sid.
Two thumbs up.
-
Several key figures with important information on the JFK assassination have died from heart attacks. I believe that many of these, including David Morales, were murdered.
I suspect Morales and others were killed by the “carotid sleeper’ method. The murderer stands behind the victim and closes off the carotid artery and therefore starves the brain of oxygen. If the victim is not in good physical condition, they will die of a heart attack within a few seconds. This method leaves little physical evidence that the person has been murdered.
However, sometimes, the person will be able to struggle for around 20 seconds before they die. If the police suspect that the victim had enemies they might organize a detailed autopsy. In that case, the police will discover the victim has died of strangulation rather than of a heart attack. This is what happened in the Bob Woolmer case.
Interesting stuff John:
Are you guys talking about soccer, cricket, or badminton? I thought that the World Cup was soccer ("football"), but maybe there's a World Cup for everything? You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but to us Americans "football" means only one thing. The real thing! And a "cricket" is something that chirps.I always said that American lacked culture. Cricket is a great game and is nearly as good as soccer...
Thanks for the link.
-
What a crock.
It was pointless for the two FBI agents to watch over the President's corpse since the chain of evidence was already broken.
The bronze casket was empty as it flew back to Bethesda on AF1. The body was removed from the casket while AF1 was on the ground with LBJ being sworn in, after he insisted that Jackie stand by him so the casket was unattended and the body moved to AF2.
The casket went to Bethesda; the body went to Walter Reed where the surgery was done to hide evidence of a shot from the front.
Tears in Killerman's eyes? Puh-leeze. As we know here the coup had SS complicity.
Note how he blamed the victim: Kennedy let people shoot him? BS! The SS job is to protect the prez no matter what he supposedly says. And Kennedy was first shot in the throat so could NOT have spoken. Lying sack...
-
...
We're living in a rented house here...we can't remove the walls, floors, doors, windows, roof, or ceiling without the permission of the owners. To do so is to run the risk of eviction. Since the rent is reasonable--free--I suggest that we either live within the rules or leave...and I AM a closet anarchist, according to some of my old high-school teachers. But a smart bird doesn't defecate in his own nest, I've been told...and I tend to agree.
But Mark, if we're in a rented house then it's not our own nest.
Please watch those mixed metaphors.
I understand there are students present.
-
JFK story is visible on the cover, but they aren't giving free samples online.
-
I'm really impressed with this book. Not done with it but it won't take long. I see that the author has answered questions in the forum, but quite a while back. Drat. I'd love to ask him some questions.
Anyway, his chapters on Tippit were kind of revelatory to me. Maybe familiar stuff to the veterans here, but not to me.
Pg 87:
"...Undercover operatives who found themselves in trouble or faced with exposure were to go to the nearest theater, where a handler would make contact. This is exactly what Oswald did. He made for the nearest cinema, the Texas Theater..."
Has anyone read that elsewhere?
And he points out that Oswald knew to yell "I am not resisting arrest" when cops came into the theater, which only a trained person would know to do.
He also presents a scenario for how Tippit fit into the overall plot, which I welcome 'cause that's always been a point of befuddlement to me.
To summarize, he says (postulates?) that Oswald believed from his CIA handlers that they were using the opportunity of the president's visit, and resulting chaos, to sneak him out of Red Bird Airport to Cuba, knowing nothing about assassination plans of course. Tippit, also knowing nothing about the assassination plans, was supposed to be the one to drive Oswald to the airport. And in fact the episode days earlier wherein Oswald threw a loud tantrum in a restaurant over the way his eggs were cooked was likely set up as a way for Tippit to see Oswald so that he'd recognize his passenger when the time came.
On Nov 22 there were some spooks keeping a clandestine watch over Tippet's car so they could report back to evil central after Oswald rode off with Tippit. However, Tippit started to get suspicious when he was waiting for Oswald and listening to his police radio and realized he was the only cop not directed to Dealey Plaza. This made him wonder if he was a pawn in the plot and he got nervous. So after he greeted Oswald, who spoke to him thru the car window, he got out and walked towards Oswald in a rather agitated fashion, fingering his service revolver. At that point the hidden spooks got spooked at the prospect of Tippit possibly reaching for his gun, and gunned him down. At which point Oswald of course bolts for the Theater.
The surprise to me is the possibility that Oswald was supposed to remain alive, and actually fly off to Cuba so the CIA and mafia could have their Cuba invasion. Then of course the Ruling Elite/Wall Street could have their profitable war. So two of the three objectives were not immediately met, though clearly the war profiteers got what they wanted anyway in Vietnam and more.
I think is sounds pretty solid.
Whaddya all think?
Myra...this is all speculation that I first heard about 40 years ago. I think it
is little more than theory, though parts may have basis in fact. To me, Tippit's
role remains a mystery.
Jack
Is there any context in which letting Oswald live long enough to fly to Cuba makes sense? It seem risky to have the patsy alive anywhere on the planet to possibly defend himself. Then again they no doubt wanted a strong link to Cuba so the mobsters and moguls and could have their island and their war.
Myra,
Is there any mention in his book of Ruby being presented during Oswald's arrest or the
second arrest?
thanks
johnw
I'll check John. I'm just getting to the Ruby chapter now.
-
...
Question: How do you know that Morales was not involved in the Kennedy assassination?
I was told by Tracy Barnes, John Martino, William "Wild Bill Harvey", and John Rosellie shortly after the assassination, that David was in Miami.
The early records shows that Morales was in the JMWAVE complex at the University of Miami campus at 10am that day.. He signed in on the duty log sheet at 9:20 A.M. and at the gate at 8:45 A.M. He was checked in at the Green Mansions Resort Motel/Hotel the evening of the 22nd. Rm 102.
...
I would expect Morales to create a paper trail showing he was somewhere other than Dallas on Nov 22.
But even if he was in Miami on Nov 22, that does not preclude his involvement in President Kennedy's assassination.
Nor does it prove he was involved.
...
Ah, so this thread has established that Morales may or may not have been involved.
Good stuff.
-
...
Question: How do you know that Morales was not involved in the Kennedy assassination?
I was told by Tracy Barnes, John Martino, William "Wild Bill Harvey", and John Rosellie shortly after the assassination, that David was in Miami.
The early records shows that Morales was in the JMWAVE complex at the University of Miami campus at 10am that day.. He signed in on the duty log sheet at 9:20 A.M. and at the gate at 8:45 A.M. He was checked in at the Green Mansions Resort Motel/Hotel the evening of the 22nd. Rm 102.
...
I would expect Morales to create a paper trail showing he was somewhere other than Dallas on Nov 22.
But even if he was in Miami on Nov 22, that does not preclude his involvement in President Kennedy's assassination.
-
I'm really impressed with this book. Not done with it but it won't take long. I see that the author has answered questions in the forum, but quite a while back. Drat. I'd love to ask him some questions.
Anyway, his chapters on Tippit were kind of revelatory to me. Maybe familiar stuff to the veterans here, but not to me.
Pg 87:
"...Undercover operatives who found themselves in trouble or faced with exposure were to go to the nearest theater, where a handler would make contact. This is exactly what Oswald did. He made for the nearest cinema, the Texas Theater..."
Has anyone read that elsewhere?
And he points out that Oswald knew to yell "I am not resisting arrest" when cops came into the theater, which only a trained person would know to do.
He also presents a scenario for how Tippit fit into the overall plot, which I welcome 'cause that's always been a point of befuddlement to me.
To summarize, he says (postulates?) that Oswald believed from his CIA handlers that they were using the opportunity of the president's visit, and resulting chaos, to sneak him out of Red Bird Airport to Cuba, knowing nothing about assassination plans of course. Tippit, also knowing nothing about the assassination plans, was supposed to be the one to drive Oswald to the airport. And in fact the episode days earlier wherein Oswald threw a loud tantrum in a restaurant over the way his eggs were cooked was likely set up as a way for Tippit to see Oswald so that he'd recognize his passenger when the time came.
On Nov 22 there were some spooks keeping a clandestine watch over Tippet's car so they could report back to evil central after Oswald rode off with Tippit. However, Tippit started to get suspicious when he was waiting for Oswald and listening to his police radio and realized he was the only cop not directed to Dealey Plaza. This made him wonder if he was a pawn in the plot and he got nervous. So after he greeted Oswald, who spoke to him thru the car window, he got out and walked towards Oswald in a rather agitated fashion, fingering his service revolver. At that point the hidden spooks got spooked at the prospect of Tippit possibly reaching for his gun, and gunned him down. At which point Oswald of course bolts for the Theater.
The surprise to me is the possibility that Oswald was supposed to remain alive, and actually fly off to Cuba so the CIA and mafia could have their Cuba invasion. Then of course the Ruling Elite/Wall Street could have their profitable war. So two of the three objectives were not immediately met, though clearly the war profiteers got what they wanted anyway in Vietnam and more.
I think is sounds pretty solid.
Whaddya all think?
Myra...this is all speculation that I first heard about 40 years ago. I think it
is little more than theory, though parts may have basis in fact. To me, Tippit's
role remains a mystery.
Jack
Is there any context in which letting Oswald live long enough to fly to Cuba makes sense? It seem risky to have the patsy alive anywhere on the planet to possibly defend himself. Then again they no doubt wanted a strong link to Cuba so the mobsters and moguls and could have their island and their war.
-
Pantalones...the markings were done by the authors of Coup D'etat in order to have a rough estimate of the height of the three men. The pants look much nicer in this view for some odd reason - but it doesn't rule out the stain. Weird. Almost like one was a reinactment and one wasn't.
Do you know the estimates the authors came up with Lee? Esp for Harrelson, uh I mean the tall tramp.
Does anyone know Charles Harrelson's height?
-
Jack,
Thanks for the heads-up on the Richards post.
I'll take the time to research his offerings and keep an open mind. But I'm still most interested in examining independent tests of the skills and claims of a Lois Gibson.
As I may have queried on another thread: Has an expert in facial reconstruction from skeletal remains ever been given the skull of a known (although not to the reconstructionist) subject and come up with a face that can be compared to the "original"?
As for Lansdale walking into a photo trap: Given the sheer number of photographers in the Plaza that day, it is simply counterintuitive to accept that an individual sufficiently wary of being identified would have traipsed into the middle of such a scene.
"Counterintuitive" at least to me.
Charles
I give a lot of weight to Prouty's ID. He said it was Landsdale. Good 'nuff for me.
-
It is all but unthinkable that a main facilitator of the murder of a president would allow him/herself to be within a thousand miles of the operation as it goes down.
To argue that Edward Landsdale played such a role in the assassination yet would be in Dallas on November 22, 1963 is to ascribe to this consummate professional the weaknesses and errors in judgment common to the rankest of amateurs.
As a writer of fiction I am quite capable of creating a Landsdale-esque character whose personal hubris and hatred for his target are sufficiently massive to outweigh professional and operational sensibilities and compel him to bear witness to his vile work. But viewing the hit from a so-called God spot is one thing, and going into the camera-infested weeds to take a hand-off from EHH is quite another matter.
Has anyone evere examined the available archives with the intent of finding posterior views of Landsdale? Have measurements of the height of the figure in question been undertaken and compared to the suspect's vertical dimensions?
As for Lois Gibson and all the other so-called experts in facial recognition and skull reconstructions are concerned: Where are the blind studies that substantiate their professional claims?
If Landsdale and Hunt were in Dealey Plaza that day, it was for the purpose of patsying.
And neither of the above qualifies as a patsy in this case.
Charles
Charles, as a newcomer to the forum, you are unaware of the numerous photo
studies of member James Richards showing that numerous high ranking CIA
operatives were present in the plaza to observe the assassination. I think his
studies are archived in the photo section. Or maybe James will give us a
quick summary of all the spooks who may have been there.
Jack
There are studies at these links Charles:
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP/
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/FFiDP-2/
The second link is James' work.
I find many of them pretty compelling.
-
Thanks to everyone who has chimed in here.
I take the point about plotters being present in Dealey Plaza but one has to remember that these people were not known to the wider public and that what actually went down post assassination and what was the original plan, might be two different things.
In an interview, Roy Hargraves made the point that in certain operations, handlers would be present on the ground to show that it was a genuine op, to share risk and to be close by if it all went wrong.
At the time of the Tramps arrest, maybe Oswald was supposed to be dead (or on his way out of the country) but the fact that he was in police custody may have had personnel scrambling and in a position to be exposed. Besides, this was the assassination of the American President, not some everyday operation.
As to the possible spooks being present in Dealey Plaza, I submit Lucien Conein, Rip Robertson and Clarence Ward Bishop who were all positioned within 15 feet of each other at the corner of Main and Houston. I also think that particular trio were responsible for handling the bulk of the assassination participants.
FWIW.
James
So you said that "Harrelson was...a close physical match for the Tall Tramp" James.
But do you think he was the tall tramp?
Chime in!
-
Oh don't be so morose. It's got everyone's pulses going. Where's the bad? (Mods, please don't answer that.
)Not morose. Chagrined at the Twisted Knickers Eruption.
Hah! Twisted knickers. That's some fine prose. Very good.
Well knickers can untwist as fast as they twist... almost.
-
Hm, I think I see a loophole:
"Members must also add a photograph as an avatar."
So technically we not being told to add a photo of ourselves. We're just supposed to add any photo.
Members must also add a photograph as an avatar. First select a photograph on your hard-drive. Your picture must be no bigger than 64 pixels by 64 pixels in size. If the width is less than 64 pixels, make a note of its size. If you are unable to do this, send me the photograph by email and I will do it for you.There is no loophole. This is not an issue of people being tracked down by the CIA. If you were that dangerous there are plenty of ways of the CIA discovering who you are. It might make you feel important by saying it is too dangerous for you to post a photograph, but it is not very convincing to those who know about such things.
In truth, this is about people playing the role of naughty schoolchildren. Part of their long-term fight against the system. I am all in favour of questioning authority, but I would have thought you could have found better causes to fight.
It is all rather pathetic but once a rule has been made, it is important that it is followed. If it is not, members who have so far accepted the rule, will start removing their photograph and biographies from their signature.
Er John, my "loophole" post was very obviously a joke, as evidenced by the smiley face--the universal joke symbol. Instead of dusting off the tired ol' "naughty schoolchildren" metaphor you might try dusting off your sense of humor.
:ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice :ice -
I'm really impressed with this book. Not done with it but it won't take long. I see that the author has answered questions in the forum, but quite a while back. Drat. I'd love to ask him some questions.
Anyway, his chapters on Tippit were kind of revelatory to me. Maybe familiar stuff to the veterans here, but not to me.
Pg 87:
"...Undercover operatives who found themselves in trouble or faced with exposure were to go to the nearest theater, where a handler would make contact. This is exactly what Oswald did. He made for the nearest cinema, the Texas Theater..."
Has anyone read that elsewhere?
And he points out that Oswald knew to yell "I am not resisting arrest" when cops came into the theater, which only a trained person would know to do.
He also presents a scenario for how Tippit fit into the overall plot, which I welcome 'cause that's always been a point of befuddlement to me.
To summarize, he says (postulates?) that Oswald believed from his CIA handlers that they were using the opportunity of the president's visit, and resulting chaos, to sneak him out of Red Bird Airport to Cuba, knowing nothing about assassination plans of course. Tippit, also knowing nothing about the assassination plans, was supposed to be the one to drive Oswald to the airport. And in fact the episode days earlier wherein Oswald threw a loud tantrum in a restaurant over the way his eggs were cooked was likely set up as a way for Tippit to see Oswald so that he'd recognize his passenger when the time came.
On Nov 22 there were some spooks keeping a clandestine watch over Tippet's car so they could report back to evil central after Oswald rode off with Tippit. However, Tippit started to get suspicious when he was waiting for Oswald and listening to his police radio and realized he was the only cop not directed to Dealey Plaza. This made him wonder if he was a pawn in the plot and he got nervous. So after he greeted Oswald, who spoke to him thru the car window, he got out and walked towards Oswald in a rather agitated fashion, fingering his service revolver. At that point the hidden spooks got spooked at the prospect of Tippit possibly reaching for his gun, and gunned him down. At which point Oswald of course bolts for the Theater.
The surprise to me is the possibility that Oswald was supposed to remain alive, and actually fly off to Cuba so the CIA and mafia could have their Cuba invasion. Then of course the Ruling Elite/Wall Street could have their profitable war. So two of the three objectives were not immediately met, though clearly the war profiteers got what they wanted anyway in Vietnam and more.
I think is sounds pretty solid.
Whaddya all think?
-
Does the name Oswald LeWinter ring a bell?
I assure you, the authors of that dangle didn't just pull those names out of thin air.
The trickster, it seems, has a sense of humor.
All for one, one for all.
Charles
The name didn't ring a bell Charles. But now that I've looked him up I intend to keep an eye on him.
Interesting. Thanks.
Oh, incidentally the subject of the Numbers episode that mentioned the JFK non-secret was voting fraud using electronic voting machines. The company name was very close to Diebold, don't recall what it was though.
Really good series. Mainstream network, prime time... Most unexpected.
-
For my first year of membership here, I slid by without a photo, until the issue was raised by somebody. In fairness to the administrators, it is a requirement of membership.
However, I felt the same trepidation that other members have mentioned above, and resorted to a tactic used by Gerry Hemming. Thinking that if it was fair for Gerry to use a photo from the late 1950s, I located one that was not quite recent [albeit one from a time less ancient than the '50s.] The admins wisely chose to edit out some of the more interesting background.
Perhaps those who share my previous trepidation would be well served by resorting to a similar tactic. It meets the letter of the law, if not the spirit or intent.
Ah, the elephant in the corner speaks out.
The photo rule does result in some interesting psychology. When I first became a forum member I saw Dunne's phantom of the opera picture and assumed he was not legit, so I didn't read his posts. In that case the absence of a photo made me jump to a conclusion.
Subsequently someone said something about what a valuable researcher he is, so I revisited my conclusion based on this new information... Result: still don't read his posts.
I think my point is (
), probably a lot of people feel trepidation over posting photos and also real names. I did and do. But I posted a pic out of respect for the environment. I would like the overtly trepidatious to know that some members post photos in spite of concerns, and possibly even to make a tacit statement about courage and resolve in researching President Kennedy's murder.I'm not militant about it however. If someone has a compelling reason not to flash their photo around I'd think the mods could handle it on a case by case basis. I didn't see a compelling reason in Dunne's post, but perhaps the mods know of one. Enforcement of any rule is ultimately up to them anyway.
(Man I've eaten a lot of ice cream tonight.)
-
If challenged to do so it would be difficult to conjure up five more absurd statements relating to an extremely simple forum requirement.
Like I said, I'm sorry I brought it up...
Oh don't be so morose. It's got everyone's pulses going. Where's the bad? (Mods, please don't answer that.
) -
See the following for information on this rule:
Hm, I think I see a loophole:
"Members must also add a photograph as an avatar."
So technically we not being told to add a photo of ourselves. We're just supposed to add any photo.
)
), probably a lot of people feel trepidation over posting photos and also real names. I did and do. But I posted a pic out of respect for the environment. I would like the overtly trepidatious to know that some members post photos in spite of concerns, and possibly even to make a tacit statement about courage and resolve in researching President Kennedy's murder.
New LOG IN policy is annoying
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted