Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
Here is an article for those afraid to click. What I find interesting is that he had severe coronary artery disease, yet died very suddenly in his sleep. The timing of this is also interesting, what with Stockton writing his book on Harvey, and dying before it could get released, and Hunt writing his book, and dying before it could get released. And here, Harrelson dies, and the article on his death fails to relate that Harrelson at one point claimed to have killed Kennedy.
Woody Harrelson's dad dies doing 2 life terms
From the Associated Press
9:15 AM PDT, March 21, 2007
Charles V. Harrelson
Charles V. Harrelson
click to enlarge
DENVER -- Actor Woody Harrelson's father, Charles Harrelson, died of a heart attack in the Supermax federal prison where he was serving two life sentences for the murder of a federal judge, officials said today.
Charles Harrelson, 69, was found unresponsive in his cell on the morning of March 15, said Felicia Ponce, a Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman in Washington.
Fremont County Coroner Dorothy Twellman said an autopsy showed Harrelson had severe coronary artery disease. She said he probably died in his sleep. "It appears it was very sudden."
Charles Harrelson was convicted of murder in the May 29, 1979, slaying of U.S. District Judge John Wood Jr. outside his San Antonio, Texas, home. Prosecutors said a drug dealer hired him to kill Wood because he did not want the judge to preside at his upcoming trial.
Charles Harrelson denied the killing, saying he was in Dallas, 270 miles away, at the time.
Wood, known as "Maximum John" for the sentences he gave in drug cases, was the first federal judge to be killed in the 20th century.
Charles Harrelson was transferred to Supermax, the highest-security federal prison, after attempting to break out of an Atlanta federal prison in 1995. Other inmates at Supermax, about 90 miles south of Denver, include Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, Oklahoma City bombing coconspirator Terry Nichols and Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph.
His son got his start in acting as Woody the bartender on "Cheers" beginning in 1985 and went on to star in films including "Natural Born Killers," "White Men Can't Jump" and "The People vs. Larry Flynt."
Woody Harrelson's publicist did not immediately return a call seeking comment today.
The actor was just 7 when his father was first sent to prison, for murdering a Texas businessman. He was in college when his father was convicted of the judge's assassination.
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?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpBDuSJeH14
Please allow me to apologize in advance for the poor quality of this video. I am looking for a better quality version of this interview, but I felt that it was important to get on video what he SAID more than it was important to see how he looked.
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.
-
Thanks Gil,
I have been adding them to the political assassinations group on youtube, please join us and share your videos there http://www.youtube.com/group/assassination
We have 109 videos and 68 members.
I have added you as a friend on youtube.
Al the best,
John
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.
-
Charles Harrelson died in the early hours of the morning due to a heart attack. Harrelson is the father of actor Woody Harrelson and is suspected of being one of the three tramps arrested near Dealey Plaza following the Kennedy assassination.
I have been working on a presentation on Harrelson for this weekends Caterbury Seminars for Dealey Plaza UK. In my presentation I was going to share a small piece of information that, if fully researched, could prove Harrelson's innocence in the murder of Judge John Wood. I have, in the past, corresponded with Harrelson a few years ago with regard to the assassination. I had intended to contact Harrelson again, but now I will not have the chance.
My research into Harrelson will cntinue much as it has, as Harrelson was not particularly open in his letters. One wonders what secrets Harrelson took to the grave with him. One also wonders whether Harrelson left any secrets with his attorneys as so many of his ilk have done.
I can not help but be saddened at his death, though he was a murderer and a con-man. I will post up a type up of my Canterbury presentation for others to read. My presentation on Harrelson from a few yeas ago is available in the online seminars section of the forum http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2371 . Bear in mind that I was 17 when I wrote this earlier account and am now 21.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/breakingnews/ci_5486103
John
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.
-
I follow the advice of Penn Jones. It is unsafe to keep secrets. Quickly tell everything
you know to everyone who will listen. It is SECRET INFORMATION that they fear.
Once the info is out and everyone knows, there is no reason to eliminate the secret
holder.
The people investigating the Roscoe White affair failed to adhere to this
principle. My friend Tom Wilson KEPT ALL OF HIS STUDIES SECRET. I fear
that may have cost him.
If you have a secret about the case, expose it as quickly as possible. Don't
hold it hoping to profit from it.
Jack
The name Dorothy Kilgallen comes to mind.
-
He said he was instructed by Hunt in 1974 to back up an alibi for his whereabouts on the day Kennedy died, 11 years earlier.
"I did a lot of lying for my father in those days," St. John said.
I'm sure he did. And does.
-
Well I can't find it on his site.
If it's still there could you please post a link?
Myra,
It was in the JFKMurdersolved.com forums under "A Dutch Warren Commission."
Here
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.
-
I read that Wim Dankbaar was recently arrested and jailed over his investigation of a Dutch crime.
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?
-
I read that Wim Dankbaar was recently arrested and jailed over his investigation of a Dutch crime.
While I do not believe the Files story and I have taken pot shots at Dankbaar on occasion, I believe his arrest was an abuse of police power. Whatever his position on the JFK case, whatever his business motives, he seems determined to bring facts to the surface regardless of the consequences. So in that light I just wanted to voice my protest at his incarceration and wish him well.
This sucks. I don't see any info on his forum.
Now I'm getting really worried.
-
I read that Wim Dankbaar was recently arrested and jailed over his investigation of a Dutch crime.
While I do not believe the Files story and I have taken pot shots at Dankbaar on occasion, I believe his arrest was an abuse of police power. Whatever his position on the JFK case, whatever his business motives, he seems determined to bring facts to the surface regardless of the consequences. So in that light I just wanted to voice my protest at his incarceration and wish him well.
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.
-
The moderating team will be taking up the issue of avitars on an indivdual basis with those not compling with this simple request. If you have not already done so please post a recent picture of yourself. If anyone is unsure how to do this send your picture to John. Steve.
Thanks for the clarification Stephen.
-
The finding of this document could be timed to coincide with the increased coverage of the RFK assassination. Shane O'Sullivan's Newsnight piece would have upset a few in Langley and D.C., perhaps this is a reprisal of sorts. John mentioned the fact that Talbot's book will be coming out soon. And of course the Dealey Plaza UK conference is this weekend, let us not forget that. The Australian press are obviously giving us something to talk about in the pub in Canterbury.
John
And then Bugliosi's book will be coming out... on President Kennedy's birthday, May 29.
So the propagandists are ramping up big time.
-
There are some (unnamed) particularly pithy posters who periodically pontificate on this forum -- sans personal photo.
Sometimes it is illuminating to match a face with a rant or a beady eye with a snide comment.
Does the rule not apply? Did I miss the memo?
If it does still remain in effect, wouldn't it be loverly if everybody followed along?
Looking for visual parity,
MV
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.
-
For four decades there have been rumours that Marilyn Monroe's death was not a simple suicide. Now a Los Angeles-based Australian writer and director, Philippe Mora, has uncovered an FBI document that throws up a chilling new scenario.
The screen legend Marilyn Monroe...the FBI report says she "expected to have her stomach pumped out and get sympathy for her suicide attempt", but it suggests she was left to die.
........................
"Marilyn expected to have her stomach pumped out and get sympathy for her suicide attempt. The psychiatrist left word for Marilyn to take a drive in the fresh air but did not come to see her until after she was known to be dead."
Perhaps Mr. Mora doesn't understand the prevalence of FBI documents that contain demonstrable falsehoods reported as fact, or the instances in which purportedly genuine FBI documents are demonstrable fabrications. If not, he can perhaps be forgiven for that lack of knowledge.
However, even the slightest bit of research would indicate to him the very conditions that suggest Ms. Monroe was murdered preclude the contents of the purported FBI document being true. To wit:
Ms. Monroe's death was attributed by cornoner Thomas Noguchi to "acute barbiturate poisoning, ingestion of overdose." The presence of barbituates at the death scene made such a finding tenable, but Dr. Noguchi's autopsy results revealed that the lethal dose could not have been ingested orally. For, while the toxicology report found significant traces of barbituates in the liver and the bloodstream - congruent with barbituate poisoning - Noguchi's autopsy stipulated that: "... The stomach is almost completely empty. The contents is brownish mucoid fluid. The volume is estimated to be no more than 20 cc. No residue of the pills is noted. A smear made from the gastric contents and examined under the polarized microscope shows no refractile crystals. The mucosa shows marked congestion and submucosal petechial hemorrhage diffusely. The duodenum shows no ulcer. The contents of the duodenum is also examined under polarized microscope and shows no refractile crystals."
Had Ms. Monroe orally ingested a lethal dose of barbituates, Dr. Noguchi would have found traces of same in the stomach, along with the tell-tale discolouration that accompanies such ingestion. He did not. Nor did he locate the refractile crystals associated with such an oral overdose. Moreover, the 20 cc - the maximum estimate he made for the volume of stomach fluid found - would be equivalent to a large sewing thimble full of liquid. How does one down dozens of pills - presumably with a water "chaser" - and leave behind so little in the digestive tract?
Two other hypothetical means of barbituate overdose do exist.
The first is by intravenous injection, which would leave the barbituate level found in the bloodstream and liver, without leaving any tell-tale residue in the stomach. Despite having searched for such an injection site, Dr. Noguchi found no such marks upon her body.
The second means is by enema.
Needless to say, neither of the latter two means of overdose are congruent with "suicide," but would suggest murder.
Mr. Mora's speculations are fantasy, irrespective of the unproven bona fides of the purported FBI documentation.
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
-
Is the source of MM's "reported" statement one of the discredited sources cited by Anthony Summers?
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.
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.
-
There are some (unnamed) particularly pithy posters who periodically pontificate on this forum -- sans personal photo.
Sometimes it is illuminating to match a face with a rant or a beady eye with a snide comment.
Does the rule not apply? Did I miss the memo?
If it does still remain in effect, wouldn't it be loverly if everybody followed along?
Looking for visual parity,
MV
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...
-
It seems to me there's a substantial genre of articles, books and suchlike that denigrate the Kennedy brothers and make them out to be gangsters and sex fiends.
Who is behind this and why?
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.
-
Someone mentioned another book by this author on another thread, so I looked him up. He has also written a book on the corporate media and how it handled the Assassination. I don't think I have seen much mention of him on the forum until now.
Has anyone read this book? Do you know what specific macro economic policies the author focuses on? Do you recommend the book?
So far as macro-economic stuff mostly what I know is of Kennedy's desire to repeal the oil depletion allowance. I am very interested in knowing of other ways in which he may have challenged the Wall Street consensus re: tax policy and other questions concerning economic issues that might seriously effect the distrubution of wealth.
--------
Book Description
More than thirty years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the meaning and the legacy of his presidency are as much the subject of controversy as are the facts of his murder. Was JFK a tool of the Eastern Establishment - of the corporate and banking elites - or was he their bitterest enemy? Did his policies - domestic and international, implemented and unfulfilledserve to continue the domination of the powers-that-be, or did he attempt, and in many cases effect, a break with America's aristocracy? In this intriguing and penetrating analysis, Don Gibson does not simply replay the standard commentaries on the Kennedy presidency, many of which are ill-informed, even if well-meaning. Gibson looks at what JFK himself said, wrote, and did, contrasting that with the words and actions of his enemies-the Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, and the corporate and banking magnates themselves, who, as this book shows, truly despised the President. The current conventional wisdom depicts Kennedy as a cautious, even a conservative president, a Tory Democrat committed to the status quo and to the Establishment. But this book makes a compelling case to the contrary, suggesting that President Kennedy was always willing to do battle for his policies, even in the face of vicious attacks.
With its clear and lively style, this book is a revelation to the general reader and to the specialist. It also contains strikingly original insights into environmental elitism. It adds a new and important dimension to the ongoing debate over the Kennedy presidency. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
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....
-
Myra, by using 'online english french translator', and taking the french translation of the title as search keywords
Titre : Fascistes Et Nazis D'Aujourd'Hui
Auteur : Eisenberg Dennis
Editeur : Albin Michel 1
Date de parution : 01/1963 - Référence : 73679-083 - Descriptif : 222p 18/14cm Photos. Poids : 136 G....
so it should be available, though perhaps not in the US.
title "Fascistes Et Nazis D'Aujourd'Hui", author Dennis Eisenberg, editor Michel Albin, published jan 1963.
sounds like an interesting read, particularly if the US Gov sought to make it unavailable.
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
-
Myra, by using 'online english french translator', and taking the french translation of the title as search keywords
Titre : Fascistes Et Nazis D'Aujourd'Hui
Auteur : Eisenberg Dennis
Editeur : Albin Michel 1
Date de parution : 01/1963 - Référence : 73679-083 - Descriptif : 222p 18/14cm Photos. Poids : 136 G....
so it should be available, though perhaps not in the US.
title "Fascistes Et Nazis D'Aujourd'Hui", author Dennis Eisenberg, editor Michel Albin, published jan 1963.
sounds like an interesting read, particularly if the US Gov sought to make it unavailable.
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.
-
Dealey Plaza should be recognized as a highly effective assault on civilian control over the military.
Correspondingly, the Warren Commission can be seen as a delegation of the civilian leaders of our country accepting the terms laid down to them by the military. The military conceded one condition which clearly was in the initial planning; they dropped their requirement for an invasion of Cuba. Beyond that concession, the assassination and the inquiry are best recognized for what they were: a military takeover of the United States. It was nothing less.
If we are to understand and bring under control the forces which are shaping today's America and are endeavoring to shape our future, we cannot rest with the official version of the killing of John Kennedy. The model of explanation offered here explains the available data. We must employ this tool of analysis until or unless another one is offered which better explains the evidence.
If we cannot have the truth once and for all about the government's murder of John Kennedy, if the warfare interests in our government are so powerful that they cannot be questioned about such things, then let us have an end to the pretense that this is a government of the people.
...
In any event, we need no longer pretend that there is any mystery left about the assassination of John Kennedy. The cold war was the biggest business in America, worth eighty billion dollars a year as well as tremendous power to men in Washington. The President was murdered because he was genuinely seeking peace in a corrupt world. As tired as we are of the horror of the subject, all of us must address ourselves honestly to the meaning and implications of the assassination of John Kennedy, or all of us will pay the price of living in tyranny.
Jim Garrison, A Heritage of Stone
G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1970
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.
...If we cannot have the truth once and for all about the government's murder of John Kennedy, if the warfare interests in our government are so powerful that they cannot be questioned about such things, then let us have an end to the pretense that this is a government of the people.
If the American people choose to do nothing about what was done to John Kennedy and about the subtle conversion of their country from a democracy into a thinly disguised version of the warfare state, then the republic is lost and we will never see it again in our time.
...
Jim Garrison, A Heritage of Stone
G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1970
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."
-
Bill Miller serving as Gary Dunkle/Mack's mouthpiece are numerous and ongoing. I have had the experience of asking Gary, to his face and in the presence of my wife, about quotes attributed to him by Bill. He disavowed the wording, if not the substance, alluding to how Bill can get pretty carried away sometimes. Now, in this case, we have Dunkle calling Jack White a xxxx through a deniable third party. That is despicable.
Tim, As I recall ... it was during that time that you were the one who was thinking the sunspots on the wall of the shelter was the "classic gunman". I also recall you thinking that Mack drove some white van, which he did not and that somehow the city of Dallas controlled him, which they do not. Now I do not know the specifics of your conversation with Mack concerning me, but what I post concerning the information I request from Gary most always comes from direct quotes unless I say otherwise. And if I ever got carried away about anything ... it is the way I express my disatisfaction over some of the poor research practices and ridiculous way you jump to conclusions that I have witnessed in your postings.
Is this Bill speaking, or Gary speaking thru Bill?
I can't tell anymore.
Myra, the post was me speaking about Tim's past remarks posted on the forum. It would seem to me that if I were quoting Mack ... that I would not only have used quotation marks, but Mack would refer to himself as "I" and not "Mack" as I did. I also cannot imagine Mack saying that he requested information from himself, but rather it would be me who requested information from Gary Mack. I hope the information helps you.
But Bill you didn't use quotation marks in post #21.
So was that Bill talking for Bill?
Or Bill paraphrasing Gary.
Or Bill quoting Gary without the quotation marks that it would seem to you you would use?
Or you quoting Gary who is mimicking Jack?
Or you mimicking Jack?
Or you quoting Tim as quoted to you by Gary.
Or you quoting Gary as quoted to you by Tim.
Or you channeling Gary's energy?
And which Gary?
Mack or Dunkel?
And how is "Dunkel" spelled?
And how is it really pronounced?
And who is speaking for Bill?
Everything gets so goldarn confusing when speaking through intermediaries.
Since Gary Mack has become the topic of this thread, I will add a meaningless
tidbit which Gary likely will dispute.
My remembrance is that I once asked him why he chose MACK as his pseudonym
for his radio disk jockey personna. As I remember he said something like it's
short, memorable, and since a large part of our market was truck drivers it
would make them think of MACK TRUCKS, a positive image...and it is more
macho sounding than Dunkel.
OK Gary...now please tell "Miller" the "real story"...so he can relay it to us
and once again prove me wrong.
Jack
I'm sorry Jack, I simply won't believe that story until I hear it directly from the horse's mouth -- Bill.
(It is pretty friggin' hilarious...)
The Three Tramps
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.