Myra Bronstein

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...)

Myra, your research has probably by now given you the answer, but just in case. AFAIK The Reds have a heritage to the 'Paris Commune' where the blood drenched sheets used to wrap the dead also became the flag* used to represent the revolution. The revolution failed, but the 'Soviet' or a type of worker organisational structure was a lesson learnt and implemented in the Russian Revolution where the Red flag (now with the hammer and sickle representing the working classes in the corner) again became the banner. Leon Trotsky (Lenins comrade) became the leader of the Red Army (or Red Russians, if you will) of the Bolchevics. The members of the almost immediate Counter Revolution supported by the rest of the capitalist world became known as the 'White Army', or White Russians. After the victory of the Red Army over the White Army. the White Russians were dispersed throughout the world through many avenues, one of interest here being through China. (De Mohrenshild's and others). Today there are very few if any White Russians, but many who can claim it as a heritage. In the 1960's there were still many real 'White Russians' left. Interestingly (to me) the neighbour of my childrens mother when she was a child, was a White Russian who came to OZ through China. * http://www.cnt-f.org/IMAGES/index.php?deta...ne%20de%20Paris _______________ (I know this is not really relevant, but it shows how extendings ones research into the past reveals interesting things. I'm of Nordic heritage and it was my ancestors as Vikings who 'discovered' and named "the land of the Rus" in their eastern explorations. We know this area now as Russia.) John, Thank you SO much! Every other definition I've found on the web just confused me more. They were either partial definitions or outright nonsense. The explanation of the way the red/white colors became symbols and then labels was a huge missing component. Now you've helped me understand the Russian flag as well as answering my question. That image you linked to really made it click. Thank you for your answer, and for the level of detail. Much appreciated. Myra

Alright, I give up. I've read this term over and over without understanding it. What is a "white russian"? (No joke answers please; I know what a Russian is.)

Yessss. The Mockingbirds nest, aka the Sixth Floor Museum, serves as an anchor for party liners. It's a physical tangible brick and mortar structure in an infamous building and it serves as a powerful backdrop for the regularly scheduled PRopaganda fortifications like Hollands. Propaganda, repetition, brainwashing, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat... What physical tangible backdrop do real historians like Peter Dale Scott and Larry Hancock have in the unlikely event that a mainstream media camera is pointed at them and they're allowed to discuss facts? http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_072000656.html Just get a load of this huge steaming pile: "More than 43 years after the Kennedy assassination, some folks still wonder whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone." (Stated as a parenthetical fact.) "But eye witnesses heard three shots." (And many witnesses heard more than three shots.) "If that were true, Holland said, "We would know that it was not an extraordinary act of marksmanship, assuring us that Oswald was the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza and put to rest any notion that he had to have help in order to pull off that feat of marksmanship." (Reinforcement of Oswald as a/the gunman, ignoring the HSCA conclusion of conspiracy.) "Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone when he shot the president from the schoolbook depository? More than 43 years after the assassination, conspiracy theorists still abound. Although all of the facts still point to Oswald, it still does not stop the speculation." What a brazen xxxxin' lie. Of course facts don't point anywhere near that poor patsy. But that's the point of these regular LN theory eruptions, in addition to heaping more confusing material into the already muddy water. The latest "new book" just provides an excuse to again refresh the hypnotic suggestion: All facts point to Oswald. The absurdity of the theory doesn't matter at all. It's just a contrived opportunity to repeat the lies to a new generation and reinforce the lies in older generations. And the mockingbird nest is one of their most valuable props.

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.

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.

Hee hee!

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. If Jack's story is not true and Gary wanted to refute it without crossing his self-imposed line of posting on forums, he could provide the best evidence available to Bill Miller and then Bill could report the evidence on its own merits, without resorting to the "Gary said" bastion. I welcome clarifications, and Gary Mack is in a position to provide them at times, but if he is unwilling to do so without using buffers, then he should just let them go. Plenty of misrepresentations are made about Robert Groden, but you don't see him sending out a deniable mouthpiece to defend himself. Tim "Gary Dunkle"? Does Mack have an alias Tim? ********************************************************** ""Gary Dunkle"? Does Mack have an alias Tim?" Dunkle is his actual surname, Myra. German, if I'm not mistaken. Mack is his alias, or his professional "stage" name. I see. Sorta... Thanks Terry.

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. If Jack's story is not true and Gary wanted to refute it without crossing his self-imposed line of posting on forums, he could provide the best evidence available to Bill Miller and then Bill could report the evidence on its own merits, without resorting to the "Gary said" bastion. I welcome clarifications, and Gary Mack is in a position to provide them at times, but if he is unwilling to do so without using buffers, then he should just let them go. Plenty of misrepresentations are made about Robert Groden, but you don't see him sending out a deniable mouthpiece to defend himself. Tim "Gary Dunkle"? Does Mack have an alias Tim?

I don't trust The Nation, I don't think they're a genuine progressive publication, and I've boycotted them for years for that reason. I think they're a faux liberal "asset," like Noam Chomsky. FWIW

If a shot was fired when JFK was under the snipers nest, then it was a shot that no one heard. The first shot came between Z186 and Z202 according to the statements made by Betzner and Willis. As far as Mack's position ... the following is what I understand it to be as told to me by Gary ................. "Max isn't in town - he was interviewed by the Baltimore CBS affiliate. He's not promoting a new book, either - , though he's still writing one about the Warren Commission. Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails. I do agree that an indentation MIGHT be visible on the mast IF it is the original mast." Take a look at the news story that aired here last night: http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_072000656.html Gosh Bill, how sweet of you to serve as Mack's mouthpiece. I declined that very opportunity tonight when he sent me pretty much the same pm he sent you. And since I've bluntly told him in the past NOT to send me furtive messages I got even more blunt this time: "After watching the video and reading the transcript at the link you provided, I think you have a valid question. And it's up to you to pose it to Jack; I'm not your mediator or your spokesperson. Since you have an account on this forum you should stop hiding behind researchers to further your agenda by posting your messages for you. Just use your account to say whatever you want to say up front and let people debate or discuss theories with you directly. Ah, but that would take courage and accountability wouldn't it...? Regardless, I don't welcome your private messages and email. Post it on a forum, target someone more gullible, or keep it to yourself."

Oh, I stopped wondering that long ago...

I'm confused. Ayres documents the presence of RFK where?

But if they looked at Altgens 6 and put the bogus issue to rest then they couldn't use it as yet another tool to muddy the water with so many conflicting contrasting confounding theories and counter-theories that the general public recoils from the subject and concludes it's unsolvable. That wouldn't suit their objective.

Hope you don't mind me quoting you here Stephen. Stephen Roy from another Forum: ...

Someone pulled the curtain aside and showed the Wizard of Wiki. Sure want to see more like this. Hm, shouldn't there be a Wiki page about the brew-ha-ha over Wiki's fraudulent foundation? (Just to close the loop: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry96470)

Bad news for Wiki; good news for truth: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9501 "Scandal hits Wikipedia, Fake professor in Wikipedia storm"

The dead Russian journalist du jour. Let's see: shooting, poisoning, shooting, heart attack, fall from a high building.... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...reporter05.html Another Russian critical of government dies MOSCOW — A military correspondent for Russia's top business daily has died after falling out of a window, and some media alleged today that he might have been killed for his critical reporting. Ivan Safronov, the military affairs writer for Kommersant, died Friday after falling from a fifth-story window in the stairwell of his apartment building in Moscow, officials said. His body was found by neighbors shortly after the fall. With prosecutors investigating the death, Kommersant and some other media suggested foul play. "The suicide theory has become dominant in the investigation, but all those who knew Ivan Safronov categorically reject it," Kommersant said in an article today. The Moscow city prosecutor's office did not respond to repeated calls for comment, and neighborhood prosecutors could not immediately be reached. Safronov's colleagues and relatives have described him as a strong, cheerful person who would be extremely unlikely to kill himself. Safronov, who had served as a colonel in the Russian Space Forces before joining Kommersant in 1997, frequently angered the authorities with his critical reporting. He was repeatedly questioned by the Federal Security Service, the main KGB successor, which suspected him of divulging state secrets. ... "For some reason, it is those journalists who are disliked by the authorities who die in this country[/b]," the daily Moskovsky Komsomolets said today. "Ivan Safronov was one of those. He knew a lot about the real situation in the army and the defense industries and he reported it." Russia is among the most dangerous countries for journalists, plagued by attacks on reporters who seek to expose official corruption and other abuses. The problem was highlighted by the October killing of Anna Politkovskaya, an investigative reporter and a harsh critic of human rights abuses in Chechnya. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said in January that 13 Russian journalists have been murdered in contract-style killings since 2006, making Russia the third deadliest country for journalists after Iraq and Algeria over the past 15 years.

It has to be remembered that in 1940 Joe Kennedy's critics considered him to be a neo-fascist. To describe the opponents of the Kennedy's as fascists is as relevant as the far right calling JFK a "communist". Do you really mean "fascists" or is it your way of describing a group of people you don't like? This thread is not about Joe Kennedy Sr. The references I've made about the fascist's hatred of the Kennedy's apply to John, Bobby, and Ted Kennedy, who were/are very different from their father. When I say "fascism" I'm thinking of the definition attributed to Benito Mussolini, the supposed creator of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." The definition is totally relevant to the four major sixties murders, which were committed against leaders seeking peace, by corporate entities who made profits from war.

You're kidding right? No Richard. I am not kidding Richard. I am pointing out a FACT Richard. Ruling out some evidence is not the same as PROVING that one person did not commit a crime. Stating that FACT is not the same as giving an opinion, one way or the other, about what I believe in the case of Files. Stating that FACT is not the same as saying what I think of the individuals on either side of the issue. Just a straightforward statement of a FACT. How's this for FACT Myra...Files has been proven to be a xxxx again, and again, and again. By your reasoning, NO ONE is precluded from being an assassin if they were even near Dallas on November 22, 1963. How about doing some research for once. If you're so interested in FACTS, try using some once in a while. "You're kidding right?"

You're kidding right? No Richard. I am not kidding Richard. I am pointing out a FACT Richard. Ruling out some evidence is not the same as PROVING that one person did not commit a crime. Stating that FACT is not the same as giving an opinion, one way or the other, about what I believe in the case of Files. Stating that FACT is not the same as saying what I think of the individuals on either side of the issue. Just a straightforward statement of a FACT.

Yeah. I know I'm being close-minded. But hey, I gotta have some kind of credibility barometer. And I don't tend to buy 'buraucratic bungling' explanations of such major events. Esp major events that obviously benefited the evil overlords--BFEE and war profiteers, and that fit in perfectly with known PNAC plans. Oh, I should add that I haven't watched the program.

Thank you Allan for fantastic detective work and a well-written, concise article. That sure took persistence on your part and it really paid off. Thank you for posting the link Bernice. Now, back to the discussion about who paid for the real bullets and who ordered them... (Of course even if everything Allan says is true, it does not rule out Files as a shooter. It just rules out the bullets as evidence. For those interested in Wim's rebuttal, it's on his forum: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/forum/)

Well yeah, Spartacus is the authoritative site on JFK and more. But the existence of a few good sites doesn't mean that we needn't fight internet propaganda. Just like the existence of a few good books like "Someone Would Have Talked" and "Plausible Denial" doesn't mean we needn't fight propaganda (hi Bugliosi!) in the publishing world. Wiki has a lot of traffic and is wrongly considered "authoritative" by the deluded demographic. If they're gonna continue their right-wing ways we can at least try to change it and/or document it in this public forum if they refuse to be objective. ****************************************************8 "Wiki has a lot of traffic and is wrongly considered "authoritative" by the deluded demographic. If they're gonna continue their right-wing ways we can at least try to change it and/or document it in this public forum if they refuse to be objective." This is true, Myra. But, as B.K. explained, and as I concur, "not to dissuade anyone." You'd need a cast of editors to monitor Fakepedia 24/7 in order to stay on top of them. If there are a few good men/women with that kind of capacity for vigilance then, by all means, go for it. But, the fact remains, Fakepedia is a right-wing, conservative front, set up specifically for the spreading of disinfo/misinfo throughout the general populace, aka the sheeple, and the road to hell is known to have been paved with good intentions. But, if any of you guys happen to have the time for this form of blanketed surveillance, then be my guest. Just remember to copy and paste every edit and correction, as J.S. suggested, as a means of documentation. Then, it can be held up to their faces, or the faces of any newcomers to their farcical excuse of an encyclopedia, just how many falsehoods are being plastered over the actual truth of the matter, by their supposedly intelligent group of high-school, home-schooled, cult- schooled, and religious fundamentalist-indoctrinated zealots working on their phony, inaccurate site. You're probably right Terry. And given that I've experienced first-hand the apparent fact that attempts to get some balance in a Wiki page go nowhere, I suppose it'd be a big ol' time sink.

Thanks Ron. Ok, so Time magazine "reported" it... When a major CIA rag "reports" something, esp on military and spy matters, doesn't that make the "something" suspect?