Myra Bronstein

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.

I found Gibson's presentation quite convincing, though I could still waffle on two out of the three tramps. The exception is Harrelson. It's him in Dealey Plaza. I base my conclusion not only on the fact that it looks exactly like Harrelson, but on the fact that Harrelson (as Gibson pointed out) is almost always smirking. That makes him stand out in most photos of him, esp given the fact that in photos he's usually in a setting where smiling is inappropriate, e.g., Dealey Plaza after a president is murdered, in court, under arrest... It's Harrelson. Thus my lack of mourning over his death.

I couldn't find any article on google news that mentioned Harrelson's likely role in President Kennedy's assassination. That is an interesting observation you make Pat. President Kennedy's birthday coming up on May 29. Two big books, David Talbot's "Brothers" and Bugliosi's "I'm a CIA Whore," coming out in May as a result. Two almost certain conspirators/murderers dying shortly before. Granted they were old. But it's always good to note context in JFK research.

Dunno if anyone else watches the American TV show "Numbers." I've posted about it before when they had an entire episode about MKUltra, ending with the good guy FBI agent slugging the bad guy agent from the CIA for their ongoing crimes messing with people's heads. Pretty unusual stuff for a big network TV show. But it doesn't appear to be a typical show... Ok, so a recent episode had this verbal exchange. It had nothing to do with the main plot. It was just a parenthetical interlude. One of the participants was a new character named... "Oswald." He's a young man, early twenties, thin, with brown hair. Charlie/Math Professor: "Every organization can be analyzed mathematically and in this case there's the extra added parameter of secrecy." FBI Agent: "So you could mathematically analyze the JFK assassination?" Charlie: "Oh sure. Look. JFK conspiracy theories require the cooperation of the CIA, the FBI. That number of people involved, mathematically makes keeping the secret impractical." Oswald: "Which is why we all know about it." So, what do you all hear in that exchange? Do you think it's a coincidence that the new character is named Oswald?

That is a great video. He's summarizing Trauma Room 1 nicely. Is part of the video missing? It starts and stops seemingly in mid sentence.

John, I haven't been able to figure out how to add videos to the youtube assassinations group. If you could help me with this, perhaps tell me the steps and links to hit, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Thanks for the report John. I can't share your sadness at his death, although it is sad every time we lose a probable conspirator and therefore lose some truth they could have shared. Though it sounds like he didn't give you anything of value in his letter(s). I'll look at your presentation; thanks for sharing the link. His son Woody agrees with you, from what I've read, that his father was not involved with the crime he was imprisoned for. FWIW. Anyway, I do think he was the tall tramp. So I'll just say good riddance to the tramp, and go back to researching who paid him.

The name Dorothy Kilgallen comes to mind.

I'm sure he did. And does.

Myra, It was in the JFKMurdersolved.com forums under "A Dutch Warren Commission." Here http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=504 Thank you Andy. Now I know the details. Kudos to Wim for his courage. I didn't realize he investigated other crimes as well. And thanks for making us aware Mark.

What Dutch crime did he commit? Is there a European newspaper that would make mention of this? Kathy It was on his web site. It sounded like he was brought in for questioning but they held him longer than they needed to. Obvious abuse of police power. Well I can't find it on his site. If it's still there could you please post a link?

This sucks. I don't see any info on his forum. Now I'm getting really worried.

That's upsetting news. It's hard not to wonder if the Dutch police are partners in crime with the US gov't. I hope Wim's associates will keep us posted. Of course I'll watch his murdersolved forum as well. FWIW I agree that he's serious about his research. I'm not particularly interested in who the shooter was so I don't participate much in those discussions. But his scope of research does go beyond Files. And I appreciate any sincere (i.e., non-LNer) person looking for the truth.

Thanks for the clarification Stephen.

And then Bugliosi's book will be coming out... on President Kennedy's birthday, May 29. So the propagandists are ramping up big time.

I think it should be left to the person to decide. For instance, I don't really want anyone on the Internet to know what I look like. I'm 2 hours away from Donald O. Norton. If that's paranoia, so be it. Kathy Well I don't want my picture up here either. I only displayed it because I thought it was a rule. If it isn't a rule I may remove it. So sounds like a good time to clarify with the mods... When it comes down to it - anyone could post a photo of anybody and who would know if it was really them or not? The photo idea was more of a friendly type of jesture, but if someone wanted to get around it - they can do so quite easily. Bill Yup, we're on the honor system with the pics. Still, I'd like the rule clarified.

Right, no needle marks. Death by micky finn + toxic enema. At least according to former Los Angeles prosecutor John W. Miner who was head of the District Attorney’s medical-legal section when Marilyn Monroe died. And he worked with Noguchi who has so much integrity it almost ruined his career when he told the truth on the RFK murder. Miner (not minor) details here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/co...lines-columnone

I don't remember where I read it, but Googling produced the book The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe by her former husband Robert Slatzer, in which she is quoted as telling one of them (I assume Bobby), "You two have been passing me around like a piece of meat." Whether she herself said it or not, there would appear to be some truth to the statement. Book for sale on eBay Well, given the post assassination assassination the Kennedy men have been subjected to, and the fact (I consider it a fact) that they were framed for Marilyn's murder, I would not be at all surprised if the "piece of meat" comment was part of the ongoing character assassination of the men. I would need a super reliable source to believe it. Obviously it's subjective whether or not Slatzer is a good source. But a brief google search turned up this: "He gained the media spotlight with his 1974 book "The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe," in which he claimed that he and Monroe had met when she was a struggling model and were secretly married in Mexico in 1952. He wrote that 20th Century Fox Studios head Darryl F. Zanuck ordered the marriage dissolved over concerns about Monroe's image, and that the documents were destroyed. In the 1980s, he sent a letter to county supervisors arguing that Monroe was murdered and a grand jury should investigate her death. The grand jury rejected the request. He wrote a second book on Monroe, "The Marilyn Files," that was published in 1992. Slatzer was never able to conclusively prove the marriage took place to the satisfaction of her many biographers, but, likewise, attempts to conclusively disprove his claims have fallen short as well." http://www.mst3kinfo.com/rolodex/Slatzer.html "We lived together as man and wife for two days. But then it was all over . . . Our relationship was strained and I finally decided that it had to come to an end. 'I think we should go back to Tijuana and get the marriage annulled,' I suggested. Slatzer wrote that, on their return to Mexico, the official who had married them refused to grant an annulment, but burnt their marriage certificate after being given a $50 bribe." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...30/ai_n14606802 So this guy claims he was married to MM for two days but the proof was burned. And in the two obits I found of him there is a huge contradiction about why the marriage ended. I think I'll give the Kennedy brothers the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I think it should be left to the person to decide. For instance, I don't really want anyone on the Internet to know what I look like. I'm 2 hours away from Donald O. Norton. If that's paranoia, so be it. Kathy Well I don't want my picture up here either. I only displayed it because I thought it was a rule. If it isn't a rule I may remove it. So sounds like a good time to clarify with the mods...

I assume it is organized by the Republican Party. The Kennedys are closely identified with the Democratic Party. It tends to happen when the Republicans are being investigated for corruption. It amazes me that they don't spread some of the true stories about LBJ. I don't think this is a party matter. Republican politicians nowadays often quote JFK with approval, but seem to think that the less about Johnson the better. No one wants to be reminded of that ugly character, and there is a sizable segment of the journalistic establishment that wishes Robert Caro would stop working on his Johnson biography. Jim Di Eugenio has an excellent article on the character assassination of the Kennedy brothers that followed their physical assassination, posted here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry61914 Anthony Summers has been a leader in the movement to assassinate the characters of the Kennedy brothers. Since he is a member of this forum, perhaps Mr. Summers will enlighten us on what motivates him. I doubt if loyalty to the Grand Old Party is a consideration in his case. John, JRC is correct in that the Republican Party, while party to Dirty Tricksters, is not behind this well orchestrated campaign, which began with the "Second Plot" (per Mathew Smith) - to blame the assassination on Castro/RFK, set in motion before the assassination. What I don't see is "Anthony Summers....a leader in the movement to assassinate the characters of the Kennedy brothers." Can you elaborate on that? Am I missreading Summers? Thanks, BK I share your confusion BK.

Nathaniel! You're talking about one of the best books there is on our subject. I put Battling Wall Street up there with Deep Politics and Prouty & Garrison; one of the best--if not the best--big picture books. In other words I recommend it. In other words I consider it essential. It's the best. I've only read the first two thirds 'cause it was an interlibrary loan and it was overdue and they were charging me $153 as overdue fees. So I had to return it and get those fees removed. But I immediately ordered it again so I can finish the last sections. Anyway I mentioned Battling Wall Street in a couple of threads. And I posted a long quote from it here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8052&st=15 I've pasted it below. "I'm starting to think that it's not terribly important whether or not President Kennedy bypassed the Federal Reserve bank to print US treasury notes. I mean, it's interesting, and the actual notes would be great metaphors (and evidence), but it already seems clear enough that he was at odds with the banking establishment. I'm reading "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency." http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battling-Wall-Stre...y/dp/1879823101 It's remarkable. Totally bypasses the subject of which drooling thug aimed a gun at the President, and points to the people who likely bought the bullets. Here's a passage, Pg 73 on: "During Kennedy's presidency, David Rockefeller was emerging as one of the leaders of the financial community and of the upper class in general. He was president of Chase Manhattan Bank--in line to become its chief executive--and he was vice-president of the Council on Foreign Relations. In July of 1962, Life magazine featured an exchange of letters between David Rockefeller and President Kennedy. In this public and somewhat polite airing of differences, Rockefeller offered praise for some of Kennedy's actions, but he ultimately located the source of the country's economic problems in the president's policies. Claiming to reflect the concerns of bankers in the U.S. and abroad, Rockefeller advised the president to make a "vigorous effort" to control government spending and to balance the budget. He also suggested to Kennedy that interest rates were being kept too low and too much money was being injected into the economy. In his reply, Kennedy either rejected or ignored these arguments. Rockefeller's concern for what he called "fiscal responsibility" was also expressed in a report issued around this time by another influential group with which Rockefeller was involved. This was the Committee for Economic Development, which was created in the early 1940s and largely made of of leaders from the major non-financial corporations in the U.S., including two of the directors of Time [magazine]. ... The commission wanted to make free trade and private initiative central to U.S. foreign policy. ... When David Rockefeller ventured to publicly condemn Kennedy's policies he was adding his personal prestige to the campaign run by Morgan-Rockefeller related media. These interests were also represented within the Kennedy administration, and they attempted to steer Kennedy in certain directions, with little success. As noted above, there was a clear split within the Kennedy administration over economic policy. The Kennedy group, which included Walter Heller and FDR Jr., opposed the Dillon-Federal Reserve group, which spoke for the major banks. Dillon was a close associate of David Rockefeller's and a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking. William McChesney Martin, the Fed's chairman, would become supervisor of the Rockefeller family's trust fund. ... In these conflicts, as well as those discussed earlier, Kennedy was coming up against those people variously referred to as the East Coast Establishment, Wall Street, finance capital, the higher circles, etc. The label is not important. In the end they all refer to Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the many other wealthy and influential families allied with them (including Harriman, Cabot, Lodge, Dillon, Bundy). Kennedy's ideas about the responsibilities of the presidency, his attitude about economic progress and the role of the federal government in achieving that progress, his view of foreign aid and foreign policy, and his recommendations and actions in a variety of specific areas disrupted or threatened to disrupt established order. In that established order, in place for most of the century, major government decisions were to serve or at least not disrupt the privately organized hierarchy. Many in the upper levels of this hierarchy, most emphatically those in and around Morgan interests, were--and still are--involved in a relationship with the British establishment. Their ideas about the world are similar to, if not direct imitations of, those of that older British elite rooted in inherited wealth and titles and organized in the modern world around control of finance and raw materials. In this world view, the Anglo-American upper class should maintain its global position by suppressing progress elsewhere and by preventing or containing disruptive changes within England and the United States. Important decision-making power should be kept in private hands, or, if necessary, in government agencies under their influence. From this perspective, Kennedy must have looked like a wild man. Economic growth, scientific and technological progress, expanding opportunity, development in the Third World, and social justice were the goals for Kennedy, not preservation of the class structure. Not only were the government policies he undertook intended to further this disruptive agenda; in many specific instances those policies meant that decision-making power was being taken over by the author of that agenda. Even where Kennedy's efforts only meant changes in the rules, these changes were intended to alter investment patterns and tax burdens in a way not in tune with upper-class interests. Seen in this context, the rhetoric of the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Life and Newsweek makes sense. Also understandable is the unusual spectacle of a private establishment figure such as David Rockefeller going public to personally challenge the president. Rockefeller's Life magazine admonishment was polite; the polemics elsewhere were not. To label a popular president a cultist, a reactionary, a threat to freedom, was to engage in serious conflict with the democratically elected leader of the Republic. It suggested great anger, and it indicated a frustration produced by Kennedy's failure to heed the criticism. President Kennedy's refusal to surrender to the pressures from such powerful forces was a demonstration of courage. In discussing the meaning of courage Kennedy said: "A man does what he must--in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures--and that is the basis of all human morality." His repeated efforts on behalf of economic progress and justice demonstrated the highest form of morality." I cannot recommend this book highly enough. I would love to see those letters exchanged between Rockefeller and the President, and the Committee for Economic Development report. Anyone got a lead on them?" Also, I took pages of notes. That's how great this book is. So even though I don't have the book right now, my notes show that the book's main focus is on the many clashes between the President and the Ruling Class/Rockefellers/Bankers. The book discusses: Wages, Foreign Investments, Foreign Tax Credits, Economists such as Milton Friedman & Adam Smith, Latin American Economic Policy and Private interests in Latin America, Globalization, the fact that Kennedy wanted to bypass private banks for foreign aid (!), the attacks on Kennedy for not following policies of the World Bank, "Free Trade," how the IMF was forced on countries... One thing I got from the book is that the takeover of the country by bankers was an ongoing process when Kennedy became president and he interrupted it, and the bankers were not pleased. Another nugget--The director of the CFR was McGeorge Bundy's brother....

Thank you, again, John! Never occurred to me to do that. It does sound like an interesting read, even if it is in French. ... Ebay France awaits. http://cgi.ebay.fr/FASCISTES-ET-NAZIS-D-AU...1QQcmdZViewItem

Thank you, again, John! Never occurred to me to do that. It does sound like an interesting read, even if it is in French. ... Ebay France awaits.

Speaking of Garrison... "A few excerpts from the book Heartland by Mort Sahl from pages 116 - 119 Arriving in New Orleans, I got into a cab and said to the cabbie, "4600 Owens Boulevard." "That's Jim Garrison's house! I'll let you off on the corner. I don't want to get shot. Somebody says there's a machine gun pointed at his door." "What do you think of this thing Garrison's got?" The driver said, "I believe those bastards in Washington are capable of anything—and a lot worse." I walked to the door and a man emerged, all six foot seven inches of him, wearing a bathrobe. I said, "I'm Mort Sahl, and I came down here to shake your hand." Garrison said, "I hope you're available to do a lot more than that." Later, he took me into a wine cellar at the Royal Orleans Hotel and opened up the Manila envelope that was the beginning of a compilation of a four-year investigation. It contained documents on Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency involvement in the events surrounding the Kennedy assassination. Who was involved? I recall at a press conference that Garrison spoke of "the right wing," and a reporter said, "But you've also charged the CIA and others." Garrison's reply still holds. "These are not mutually exclusive groups. Usually a conspiracy involves more than one person."" http://maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20No...20excerpts.html Good ol' Mae... The excerpts on this page are fantastic. Sahl knew what Garrison knew and Garrison knew. Has anyone here read Sahl's book "Heartland"? I want to know if there is a lot more material on the Kennedys, or if Mae excerpted all of it. Again Sahl's in sync with Garrison. And the guy has a way with words: "Now you know there are murderers among us, killers of the dream. You know what they did. I know some of you don't want to get involved, but you began your involvement when you began life. Do it for the best friend you ever had, John F. Kennedy. Do it for yourself. You must do it, because there is no one else." (From the same URL. Bold emphasis mine.)

Mort Sahl mentioned it in the amazing interview on Mae Brussell's site. It is possible to find this book or excerpts? A google of it turned up just turned up this interview. Wonder if it's in English. Regardless, this interview is excellent. Garrison and Sahl knew the score in '68. http://maebrussell.com/Mort%20Sahl/Mort%20...20-%20Argo.html "ARGO: What is the importance of the book that Garrison mentioned entitled Nazis and Fascists of Today, published in Paris, France? SAHL: That book mentions several of our friends here in the United States, several people here who are probably very well respected pillars of the community. But, the book was seized and placed in the National Archives until 2039 A.D. It's a sick society, and that's really the crux. That's why Garrison says this case is the crux of whether this country goes on or not. Is it an open society? Can the government tell you: "We know better what's good for you than you know for yourself"? And a lot of this has been incubated by the centralization of authority, which I'm sure the liberals will defend. They think it's a welfare program for Negroes. Hardly. The Federal government hasn't done anything good for anybody in quite a long time. You know, we ridicule our Ronald Reagans, and all. Mr. Reagan has to give somethig for the taxes. He has to give you Highway 99, or Highway 33, or 101. The Federal government doesn't have to give you anything, except a brainwash. When you think of the CIA bribing your brothers to turn you in, and you say, "Well, they've got an awful lot of money." An awful lot of money; it's ours! What do you mean they've got a lot of money? They're rag pickers. You know, and the American dream happens to be sticking to their pants legs like bicycle clips."