Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
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.)
-
It seems that Gary Mack does not allow the Sixth Floor Museum to sell "conspiracy" books. Len Osanic has called for the museum to be boycotted. Do you agree?
The late Bill Hicks said that he was amazed when he visited the sixth floor museum. And awed by the painstaking reproduction of the snipers nest. And do you know how to tell it was painstakingly authentic, just like the day JFK was killed? Because Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't there.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Does this make Miller the Man From DUNKEL?
Sorry. Too easy. Yet somehow pointed, no?
Hee hee!
-
Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting theory".Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails.Gosh Bill, how sweet of you to serve as Mack's mouthpiece.
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.
-
Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting theory".Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails.Gosh Bill, how sweet of you to serve as Mack's mouthpiece.
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?
-
yeah, it seems from Weisberg's analysis of Phil Willis that the first shot was around or before Z 190, as I recall reading.
So, this Holland theory is pretty off the mark.
Why does The Nation, a magazine usually critical of official government theories, let him write for them? It seems like the last
time they had a decent analysis in their pages was Fred J. Cook's attack on the Warren Report in the late 1960s.
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
-
Max Holland was in Dallas Monday and got about 5 minutes of time on the news
promoting a dumb theory that the "first shot" was when JFK was directly underneath
the sniper nest, but struck the overhead traffic signal boom arm, and he proposed
removing the metal bar to have it analyzed. The video showed the present metal arm
from the sixth floor view. Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting
theory".
They could have saved a lot of valuable air time by simply looking at Altgens 6.
The metal arm from which the signal is suspended from the pole on the
corner by the TSBD was not the same one which is there today.
Jack
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."
-
...
But the way Gary Mack goes along with such nonsense whenever there's abit of air-time to be had leaves one to wonder if he isn't so crooked he has to screw his pants on one leg at a time.
Tim
Oh, I stopped wondering that long ago...
-
Just got it, and I too have a problem with the size of the type.
I remember reading Ayers' "The War That Never Was," and his saying that he realized that his work at JMWAVE was somehow connected to the assassination of JFK.
While he still can't put a finger on it, "Zenith Secret" is a first person narrative of his experiences training exiles in Florida and contains some very significant information.
Besides giving a very detailed description of the JMWAVE station, Zenith Technical, and the training bases, he also goes on a mission on the Rex, without menitoning the Collins Radio connections to Dealey Plaza and Tippit, and wrote an After Action Report that should be sought as a JFK related record.
Ayres also documents the presence of Rosselli and RFK there, and identified Morales and Campbell in the RFK Ambassador video/photos years ago.
BK
I'm confused. Ayres documents the presence of RFK where?
-
...
They could have saved a lot of valuable air time by simply looking at Altgens 6.
The metal arm from which the signal is suspended from the pole on the
corner by the TSBD was not the same one which is there today.
Jack
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:
Stephen,Do you know if Ferrie also rented airplanes on occasion?
Rarely, but yes, on occasion.I'm asking because I have read that he rented a plane for his planned trip to Dallas.I'm not asking you to speak for this author, but here's an example:
"Arrested by Jim Garrison, Clay Shaw denied he knew David Ferrie, no matter that the whole town saw them together –
he counted on the CIA to protect him. Yet I was able to find a witness to a loan document Ferrie had taken out so that he
could rent an airplane to fly to Dallas the week before the assassination. Ferrie later told both the FBI and the
Secret Service that he hadn't been in Dallas for eight to ten years, clearly a lie. The co-signer of that note was…Clay Shaw!
Jim Garrison, defamed over the years, was prescient and right and is owed a posthumous apology."
...
Myra and others:I am in receipt of David Ferrie's file with Herb Wagner Finance, some 40 pages of it, covering the period 1961-1966. It details a $602.52 loan Ferrie took out in August 1961 to pay off another finance company. Unable to pay steadily after he was arrested on morals charges, Ferrie refinanced the loan in December 1962 and again in February 1964. On all of these occasions, there was no co-signer, and Ferrie listed all of his property and liabilities.
There is no trace of a $400. loan in November 1963 to rent an airplane, and no co-signature by Clay Shaw or anyone else. I think Mellen's source was mistaken.
-
Fake professor in Wikipedia storm
BBC News
3/6/2007
Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by controversy after the disclosure that a prominent editor had assumed a false identity complete with fake PhD.
The editor, known as Essjay, had described himself as a professor of religion at a private university.
But he was in fact Ryan Jordan, 24, a college student from Kentucky who used texts such as Catholicism for Dummies to help him work.
He has retired from the site and his authority to edit has been cancelled.
Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia open to all, written by volunteers from around the world.
'Trust and tolerance'
Under the name Essjay, Mr Jordan edited articles and also had the authority to arbitrate disputes between authors and remove site vandalism.
In his user profile, he said he taught both undergraduate and graduate theology, and in an interview with the New Yorker in July 2006, was described as a "tenured professor of religion".
His real identity came to light last week when the magazine added an editorial note to the piece highlighting the deception.
"At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name," the note said.
Essjay told them he hid his identity because "he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online", the newspaper's note said.
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, writing on the site on 3 March, said that Mr Jordan was apologetic, but that Wikipedia was "based on twin pillars of trust and tolerance".
"Despite my personal forgiveness, I hope that he will accept my resignation request, because forgiveness or not, these positions are not appropriate for him now," he wrote.
And in a post the next day, Mr Jordan announced his retirement from the site.
"I hope others will refocus the energy they have spent the past few days in defending and denouncing me to make something here at Wikipedia better," he said.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
Published: 2007/03/06 14:39:15 GMT
------------
Wikipedia founder takes on Google
By Matt Wells
BBC News, New York
3/7/2006
Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has helped transform the way people use the net to seek out information and now the founder Jimmy Wales is hoping to do the same in the search field.
The bearded and softly-spoken founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, describes himself as "pathologically optimistic".
Bearing in mind that he recently revealed the development of a new "open source" search engine to compete for eyeballs with the mighty Google, he is going to need every ounce of optimism he can get.
"
Search has become a fundamental part of the infrastructure of society," said the 40-year-old, talking to a group of mainly media professionals at a recent event in downtown Manhattan, organised by The Glasshouse, a trans-Atlantic entrepreneurs' support group.
"The way that things are sorted and ranked and presented to us, really does shape our view of the world.
"I think it is important that we say, there really should be an alternative that is completely open and transparent," he added, before going on to criticise the culture of secrecy surrounding the cloistered algorithms of the leading search empires.
There is a paradox surrounding Wales's position in the first-rank of internet movers and shakers, which he freely acknowledges.
The Wiki boss has often said that his free, not-for-profit online encyclopaedia - that now gets seven billion page views each month with in-excess of five million multiple-language entries - was either the "smartest thing, or the dumbest thing that I ever did".
Extraordinary statistic
The total number of Wikipedia employees is five; an extraordinary statistic when you consider that it is the 10th most visited site in the world.
He told a wry anecdote about being offered a recent ride in the Google jet as the online superstars converged on the World Economic Forum in Davos - since at this point, there is no Wiki-jet.
But his cultural-hero status as the man who aims to bundle all the world's knowledge together and give it away free, is formidable.
The new "transparent" search venture is in its early infancy, and also a project that is being shepherded by the very much for-profit sister company of Wikipedia, Wikia.
His idea is to Wiki-fy the process of internet search, so that human beings decide openly how to rank and organise information, not the huge private servers of Google and Yahoo.
In an online message at the end of the year, Wales labelled the project "Search Wikia" and referred to it as an attempt to create "the search engine that changes everything".
'People powered'
He went on to ask for volunteers to step forward in the name of "people-powered" search, to help move the project forward. There was no mention of any possible profit-sharing.
Far from seeking to confront Google in conventional business terms, Wales - ever the optimist - believes that there may be ways of working with what he calls the "second tier search players" on the web.
"(Google) have hired all the geniuses... they're saying, 'gee, if this alternative could succeed, and make good quality search results a commodity, then we can compete on other things... on vertical search, on brand, on user-interface'."
His philosophical approach to challenging Google, has drawn some criticism inside the blogosphere.
The web veteran Dave Taylor, who writes The Intuitive Life Business Blog, wrote a sceptical post, questioning Wales's ability to influence the search market on any level.
"My belief - based on talking to thousands of internet users - is that the only time someone switches search engines is when their current system begins to fail them," he wrote.
"Far from being able to steal market-share from Google, the reality will be that it will be only if Google fails to produce good search results that another firm will even have a ghost of a chance of succeeding."
Wales describes his politics as "libertarian with a small l" and having become used to travelling the world to meet Wikipedia's amateur army of administrators and contributors, he says he no longer cares who wins the next presidential election in the US.
'Open societies'
"Within the broad framework of open societies, of liberal democracies, things aren't so horrible, right?"
He added: "There are horrible places in the world - these are much more important - corruption in Africa, and things like that."
Wikipedia's idealism, that some would argue is essentially flawed in that verifiability and not "objective" truthfulness is the standard by which entries are judged, has been heavily lampooned on American television in the last few months, by the satirist Stephen Colbert.
In his persona as a polemical and bombastic news anchorman, Colbert lampooned the idea of allowing enthusiasts to form a consensus amongst themselves on what is fact, or not, coining the word "Wikiality".
It has become a running joke, and the site's administrators have intervened to stop some of the show's fans from altering entries.
Unphased
Wales himself is unfazed by how easy it is for unregistered readers to make instant changes on Wikipedia - sometimes for the good, but often out of mischief.
Constant upheaval and occasional "vandalism" of the site, is a price worth paying, he believes.
"If you have a web environment where the software assumes everyone's going to do something bad, and where the community isn't given the tools to make corrections... you actually encourage hostile behaviours."
He is convinced that Wikipedia's success is down to simple software and mutual respect, combined with the minimum amount of censorship and policing possible.
Ultimately however, some wonder whether the collectivist world of Wiki, might not become more and more untrustworthy and cultish as the web expands. It is a danger that Wales himself seems to be aware of.
Speaking at the University of Pennsylvania in June last year, he reportedly said that Wikipedia should not be used by college students to conduct serious research, and if students continue to believe in the objectivity of Wikipedia, they only have themselves to blame.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6335793.stm
Published: 2007/02/07 02:38:42 GMT
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)
-
John has brought the topic of Wikepedia.org up before and I think something needs to be done about the pages on the warren commission, garrison investigation, lee harvey oswald and all matters relating to it. Would anyone like to help me to correct all of the severly biased inforamtion that somebody has put up there, im sure there are plenty of articles written online that could be used to give an accurate and truthful account of the assassination.
I volunteer to do the page on Lee Harvey Oswald, any takers on other pages?
John
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Os...#External_links
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.
-
There's no Kennedy curse; there's just the fact that the fascists hate the Kennedys and know they couldn't beat any of them in a fair election.
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.
-
(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.
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?"
-
(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.
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.
-
...--although it leans towards cover up of a 'buraucratic bungling' sort.
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:
-
Isn't this just a big waste of time?
Why not just start a real page on LHO, or Ruby and make it the authorative site on the internet?
Doesn't this web site have an bio encyclopedia of important people?
Why not update that to the max instead of jerking around with the Winacrapers?
There's a need to retype to digial the thousands of pages of WC/HSCA docs, for anyone who has a lot of spare time and nothing to research.
Not to disuade anyone from keeping those guys honest, apparently a daily exercise, I think there's a lot of better things to do.
BK
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.
-
Here's a link to Time Magazine's 11/1/63 coverage of Operation Big Lift:
Since the operation began on October 22, and was designed to have all the troops in Europe in 72 hours, the timing would seem to be off by a month in terms of any connection to the plot in Dallas.
Return flights from Europe might be another matter. It's a question of how long they stayed in Europe before flying back into Texas.
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?
-
Thanks James.
I'm guessing pratice makes perfect?
Yet we have not seen it done in the US(?).
The closest would be the King assassination
as I remember images of machine gun post
and barb wire at the White House.
johnw
Indeed, John.
With something like Op Big Lift in play during the weeks before the assassination, having say a flight out of Laos with operational teams on board would not have drawn much attention.
In addition, with all the activity out of Fort Hood, Texas would have been a hive of activity and shuffling personnel around would have been easy.
I have always wondered if one of the reasons Dallas was selected was because of this.
James
Well, Chicago and Tampa were selected too--supposedly.
Ok, I bite, very interesting statement! Were did these operational teams landed?
johnw
I'm not sure if I'm answering the question you're asking John, but I was referring to the following:
" Yet in November 1963, John and Robert Kennedy were able to keep two assassination plots against JFK that month out of the media at the time. The first was in Chicago, on November 2, 1963--when JFK had to cancel his trip and motorcade at the last minute--and the second was during JFK's long motorcade through Tampa, Florida on November 18, 1963, just four days before Dallas. Both the Chicago and Tampa plots had many similarities to Dallas, yet they were withheld from the news media and most investigators."
White Russians/Solidarists
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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