Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
I made this link comparison a couple of years ago, but I don't think I ever posted it on this Forum. Is this the same man in all three photographs, and can anyone identify him?
Duncan
The nose and chin match up, as does his taste in eyewear,
but who needed black glacier wraparound goggles in Texas?
The man with the wraparound goggles and hat with the headband is said to be that of Jim Braden at Dealey Plaza, before being taken into custody in the Dal Tex building by Dallas Sherriff deputy Lummie Lewis.
I'm not that convinced it's him.
BK
Ah, Jim Braden. His presence in the plaza was, IMO, strong proof of the Hunt klan's involvement in President Kennedy's murder, since he was a lackey for them.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntHL.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrading.htm
That is one of the few times that I've ever seen Jim Garrison fooled. He said, in On the Trail of the Assassins, that he thought Braden was placed in the plaza as a red herring, to fool people into wrongly believing oil money was in the mix. Gotta disagree with big Jim on this one.
HL Hunt and that hideous Lamar son and that other son Whatsisname had the President's blood all over them. Not sure about Murchison... but probably. (When Nixon referred to "The Texans" I think he meant Hunt and Murchison. Input on this point is welcome & appreciated.)
-
a last effort to market his name and make some money for his kids.
Did he ever get his kids straightened out about where he was on 11/22/63? He testified that he had trouble convincing them that he wasn't in Dallas, when he had testified earlier that the kids were with him that day. I imagine this only confused the kids more than ever.
Ron
As you know, Mark Lane's PLAUSIBLE DENIAL tells the story in detail.
Hunt claimed to sue the newspaper because the suggestion he was part of the Kennedy
assassination was hurtful to his children, who saw him in Washington on 11/22/63.......
but when put on the stand the kids said he was gone all weekend, so he had no alibi.......
I don't believe that Lane ever put Hunt's kids on the stand.
What won the case for Lane is that Hunt's defense was entirely based on Hunt's whereabouts on Nov 22, '63.
They managed to get some BS "alibi" from other CIA spooks that they saw him in DC that day, not in Dallas.
So Lane brilliantly decided to focus on proving Hunt was in Dallas the night of Nov 21.
He got a deposition from CIA asset Marita Lorenz placing Hunt (and Sturgis) in Dallas, handing out money or weapons or both to various thugs at some motel hours before the murder.
The jury found that there was sufficient proof that Hunt was in Dallas on Nov 21, '63. Therefore, the CIA was involved in President Kennedy's murder. We don't hear much about that in the media do we?
The jury forewoman Leslie Armstrong stated to reporters:
"Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult. He was asking us to believe that John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy."
http://www.skepticfiles.org/socialis/jfklane.htm
(Oh, and I don't believe Hunt ever got his own kids to believe his lie about his Nov 22 whereabouts. I think it remained a big issue between them.)
-
I purchased a copy of the book, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate and Beyond, at Barnes&Noble yesterday and am half-way through reading its 340 pages. This brief overview is of the first half. I hope to finish reading the second half in the next day or so.
Based on what I have read so far, I would say that the volume is most-worthwhile. Its contents bring new revelations about Hunt’s unusual life as well as reinforcing impressions of the man previously gained from the mass media. Members of the forum who are adamantly critical of Hunt will find that Watergate aside, he was a patriot who had an extremely fascinating career as an international spy, always intent on advancing America’s national interests.
There are some errors in the book. One that jumps out on page one is the author uses the name Howard Felt instead of Mark Felt in discussing Deep Throat. Hunt died in January, so he may not have had the opportunity to proof-read the book's galleys before publication.
Here are a few brief highlights gleaned from the book’s first half:
(1) Hunt in his early years was awarded simultaneously both a Guggenheim Fellowship and a Rhodes Scholarship. He chose the former.
(2) He joined the OSS under the sponsorship of Wild Bill Donovan, a family friend.
(3) After the ousting of Leftist Jacob Arbenz as president of Guatemala, “thousand of files were confiscated (but) no direct link between Arbenz and the Soviets ever emerged...Most important, the fallout resulted in a lasting legacy of anti-American bias throughout Latin America, most significantly in Cuba, Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela.” Furthermore, this led to “decades of iron-fisted military rule, under which one hundred thousand mostly impoverished Guatemalans died.”
(4) “So there are now three CIA agents who have been named in connection with Oswald – David Phillips, Cord Meyer and Bill Harvey – all with the means, motive, opportunity and some connection to kill Kennedy.”
(5) “If LBJ had anything to do with the [Kennedy assassination] operation, he would have used Bill Harvey, because he was available and corrupt.”
(6) Much of what Hunt worked on for a number of years for the CIA “was exposed in revelations about Operation Mockingbird...”
(7) Hunt was not an admirer of Angleton. “Some people have suggested that maybe Angleton was a double agent like Philby [who trained him], but I don’t think so.”
(8) LBJ ordered the CIA, who in turn ordered Hunt, to infiltrate the Goldwater campaign to gather information that could be used by LBJ against his opponent in the 1964 presidential campaign.
(9) Hunt incorrectly asserts that I was an employee of the Robert Mullen Company, handling the General Foods Corporation account. In fact, however, I was never an employee of the Mullen Company but instead of General Food Corporation, which had assigned me to work out of the Mullen Company. He writes that I “resigned [from the Mullen Company] to take up law (remember his name as it will come up later), whereupon Mullen announced that he was selling the company to Robert Bennett, son of the Republican senator from Utah.”
The second half of the book, which I shall briefly review soon, is devoted to chapters concerning activities leading up to Watergate, Watergate itself, and post-Watergate events.
All of Hunt's statements are necessarily self-serving. His veracity is doubtful.
Jack
Oh thank you for saying that Jack.
As I've often said, books by the professional murderers and liars in the CIA have no credibility. I don't see how they can have any value to researchers, or to truth buffs.
They might, however, be useful to gardeners with compost piles.
-
Myra, it quite simply coulcn't be Kennedy's Civil Rights Bill that was passed. In spite of whatever wnbc has to say/write about it.
In the other posts I mentioned the committee findings that Kennedy had through various excecutive orders set in motion and was expecting by late 1963. These findings would help shape the final Bill. The assassination interrupted that process.
After this, the desegregationist forces went all out to filibuster, amend, and to set up alternative systems within which they could effectively nullify the eventual Bill.
LBJ passed his version of what started out as Kennedys Civil Rights Bill.
"And it was Lyndon Johnson who, by his deft negotiating, managed to pass President Kennedy's civil rights legislation after his assassination." is not right.
It came in 1965, not 'after the assassination' but after a passage of time during which many events unfolded which I am sure would have made "Kennedy's Civil Rights Bill" a different thing altogether to "LBJ's Civil Rights Bill", had Kennedy been alive.
Either way the Commander in Chief who (as he showed during the armed insurrection in Oxford Mississippi, where General Walker and Gov Barret called for an armed uprising, and for which Walker was arrested) had the will to carry through a Civil Rights Bill that would probably have made the following years less 'hot', was dead.
"LBJ's Civil Rights Bill" was passed. And he was a different man altogether.
Oh. Sometimes it takes a while for things to sink in. Thanks for reiterating John.
Well, I need to do much more reading on this subject. It's hugely significant.
And I'm so tired of hearing people gush about what a great liberal LB friggen J was 'cause of his devotion to civil rights.
-
Myra, this is a big problem (IMO). Kennedy had hoped to see success in 63. Towards the end he saw it still as something that could go through in his first presidency. At last, he realised that he needed another term and he was, and made no bones about it, taking it to the 64 elections. A number of events were to happen late 63 like committee reports that would expose all the problems in education, travel. police impartiality, living choices, voting registration, one voter one vote, conditions in the USofA, were due and would guide the final draft. The segregationists launched a massive lobby campaign on many levels that reached a crescendo as the end of November approached. Kennedy was also cautious. He was after all president not just of the de-segregationists. He wanted unity, and MLK knew that.
In 1960, after named as Kennedy's running mate LBJ told a group of southern negro leaders that the last 100 years of waiting is indeed at last over. Before Kennedy was elected he went to Cora Kings aid as her husband was being very badly treated in some of the worst of the southern states. He hid nothing of this and his enemies knew him for what he stood for. The (usuccessful) Oxford insurrection, the terror camapaigns against 'the uppity n' in the south, was being dealt with by Kennedy (brothers) in no uncertain terms. When push came to shove, he let no one have any doubt of his intent.
After the assassination, the push for the passage of the 1963/64/65...bill was filibustered, attacked in any way possible. Amendments crept in, situations developed in tandem (note particularly the setting up of a separate education system in the south and all and any loophole advantage pursued that weakened the intent of the Bill as it first was proposed, and when the Bill (LBJ fullfilling his and the Kennedy's intent as far as it was possible) was passed, The Commander in Chief who would have stood his ground and given the Bill, as it was, the teeth it needed was dead.
Thank you for the summary John!
So, just to be hyper-clear, are you of the opinion that President Kennedy would have proposed civil rights legislation that was stronger than the legislation LBJ (ugh) ultimately implemented?
And are you saying that LBJ (...) compromised significantly on the legislation, which weakened it?
(Again, I haven't done the homework on this subject yet. I will...)
Follow up:
One of my research objectives has been to find out if the civil rights legislation LBJ got passed (and that people gush about in warm remembrances of the big ol' murderer) was actually Kennedy policy that LBJ appropriated. John's input was helpful, and yesterday I saw this:
"And it was Lyndon Johnson who, by his deft negotiating, managed to pass President Kennedy's civil rights legislation after his assassination."
-
Anyone seen "Stones in the park" a doc about the Stones 1969 Hyde park gig, just days after Brians death? It stands as a testiment to Jaggers massive ego, clad in what appears to be a girls party frock, Mick reads a poem by Shelly(Adonias I believe) in tribute to his dead "friend" at the end 100,000 butterflies were realised to represent Brians soul, unfortunately, and with more than a touch of pathios, nobody had thought to provide airholes in the boxes which contained the butterflies, and with temperatures reaching 80d, those which had not already expired, could only manage a listless flight, before falling dead to the stage.
I'm familiar with the infamous Hyde park episode Stephen; I didn't know there was a documentary about it though. Thanks. That would be worth seeing. And, yeah, the symbolism was perfect.
Now that I think about it though I'm surprised that Jagger didn't have Stones employee Thoroughgood drown the butterflies instead of suffocating them. Hell, they had that down to a formula. Then Stones employee Keylock could again handle the cover-up and throw acid in the eyes of pesky witnesses to permanently blind and intimidate them so that no one would ever have to know the unsavory truth about the insect massacre.
And I didn't recall that Jagger had on a nancy girl kinda frock. I wonder if he started dressing more flamboyantly after Brian's murder or before? Do you know?
I may have to get those old Ed Sullivan tapes from the library again to check. In every performance I've seen with Jones present, it's obvious that he--not Jagger--was the focal point. Jagger could flounce about and pucker his lips all he wanted but people were looking at the blond bombshell in the purple suit and plumed hat blissfully playing an instrument most people had never seen or heard before. Sitting or standing or whatever, Brian was the star and his mastery of sitar, dulcimer, mellotron, harmonica, flute, guitar... was what gave songs like Dressed in Black and Ruby Tuesday their other-worldly beauty.
It was a classic case of idealism vs commerce. Jones cared mainly about the purity of the music and about innovating. The other Stones just wanted to crank out increasingly mundane and crass music and rake in money as fast as possible. Jones would go to any length and distance--from the US R&B community to the remote mountains of Morocco--to create a fresh sound. Jagger and Richards wanted the fast pound and would go to any lengths for fabulous wealth.
Between the jealousy over Jones' natural star quality (which Dan pointed out) and Jones' objection to the increasing bastardization of his group's music, they were intent on getting rid of him. The misery they put him through, from outright refusal to talk to him to setting him up with planted drugs and drug busts to leaving him stranded and alone in the middle of nowhere while Keith Richards ran off with his girlfriend, was a huge part of Jones' emotional problems and led him to increasingly turn to drugs. Of course that was the excuse the Stones used to dump him--according to them his legal problems meant they couldn't rake in more money by touring. Bullxxxx. Jagger and Richards' legal problems over drugs were just as bad.
So Jagger steals Jones' life, look, and legacy. Much like Lyndon Johnson did with Kennedy. Jagger and Johnson. Does crime pay or what?
-
...
Myra,
I tend to agree with you here. I once worked with a guy, some years ago, who had been a session drummer with some big names in the music industry (but worked primarily with Link Wray). He told me some great behind the scenes stories. One of them was that it was common knowledge in the industry that Mick Jagger had Brian Jones "offed" (his term) because he was basically jealous of him. I like much of the Stones' music (including "Sympathy For The Devil," which is probably my favorite song by them), but found the whole incident at Altamont unsettling. Regardless of how they acted at the time, or whether Mick kept dancing after the guy had been stabbed, they really didn't display any remorse over the loss of life afterwards. Btw, I believe that prior to hitting it big with the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger studied at the London School of Economics. At the very least, that is very interesting.
So it's common knowledge in the industry eh Don? Well that's pretty damn interesting.
Hoo boy, and Jagger became successful because of Jones. Jones hired him, Jones mentored him, Jones kept him in the band even though he was not a good singer, and couldn't even sing in time to the music, and at first he wasn't a good performer.
Jones was brilliant and terribly fragile emotionally. He wasn't perfect but he sure as hell didn't deserve the prolonged abuse and harassment Mick and Keith dumped on him. They put him through hell for years and drove him from the band. But that wasn't enough for them; they wanted him dead.
And I agree about their lack of remorse after the Altamont murder. The Gimme Shelter filmmaker showed Keith and Mick the murder footage, in slow motion, on camera, and they basically shrugged. I guess at that point they were desensitized to murder. I hear it gets easier with practice.
Oh, and yes Mick did attend the London School of Economics. He was a proper bloke. Jones was never a proper bloke. He was the kind that just won't shape himself to his environment. Instead he was a creative force who molded a musical environment in which he finally felt at ease. Briefly. Then he became the victim of a coup. And his murderers went on to gain fabulous wealth and status. And it's all pretty revolting.
My favorite Stones songs are the ones in which Jones played the sitar and the flute and many other unusual instruments, and gave the music an ethereal sound. The man could play any instrument he picked up, seemingly within minutes.
-
Myra, I'm sure there is more to it than what is generally known, and I'm sure (recognise) that you do take care and seriously develop your posts and opinions, and I'm sure much of what you say is true.
Altamont came upon the heels of the remarkable Woodstock. I think a naivetee in the Stones, probably partly of who they were (compared to :John, George, Ringo and what's his name" to paraphrase Jack Cassady) there are elements in The Hells Angels that are/were honourable. There are associations and attitudes that we (many of us) are not fully aware of.
Nevertheless, whatever ones attitude to the artists and their songs, "Symapthy for the devil" is significant (IMO) not only of the words (and its remarkable rhythm and riffs, which is another story, get a copy, turn the light out and the volume right up and see yourself in a concert in 1967, or don't), but the introduction of a seldom discussed concept, that of guilt for something one did not do.
I think this touches on a power struggle in the world between those (most) who are mostly good and cappable of great good, but through inaction are somehow complicit and consequently driven to expunge a guilt of sorts, and organised evil, like those who hold the leashes on the "Dogs of War".. IMO this can be relevant as a driving force behind seeking the answer to the question "Who killed the Kennedys". Mick suggested 'you and me'. Note that 'me' here is Mick himself. That (IMO) is a degree of a responsibility that ultimately we all have in shaping the world we live in.
All of your points make perfect sense to me John. Altamont was supposed to be the Stone's Woodstock. And I'll add that in England, from what I've read, hells angels are more cuddly. Supposedly they don't have the image of an aggressive violent gang over there. So context is very significant.
A lot of my reaction is obviously emotional. And again context is a factor. A mention of Mick Jagger in any context would set me off because of his role in the murder of the extraordinary founder of the Stones (who is now almost erased from history... much like other people we discuss here) while Mick gets to strut at the Superbowl. Then put it in the context of Altamont, in which they basically lured a huge crowd to their stage and dropped a stick of dynamite on 'em, and I get pretty furious.
I think Sympathy for the Devil, in isolation, is a great song. Sympathy for the Devil, in context, is--to me--hypocritical and kinda repulsive.
Thanks for talking through this with me. I want to make sure that you know my disgust is directed at Mick and clan, not you.
-
Also,
Here is a more complete listing of songs relevant to the assassination.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c+assassination
John
Thanks for that link John!
-
Myra, that was only one instance (wrongly) attributed to the song. And when Mick became aware of what was going on, certainly didn't "prance.. about singing."
If you read my post you'll see that I didn't say that they were performing Sympathy for the Devil when the murder happened John. They were playing Under my Thumb.
If my tone is harsh it's because I do think the Stones were responsible for the Altamont murder but never took responsibility.
(In fact there were four deaths that day due to lack of planning on their part.)
They were also largely responsible for Brian Jone's murder and much of the cover-up including the burning of Jones' possessions.
In both cases their direct employees committed the crime.
In the Altamont murder case the Stones at least weren't willful accomplices.
In the case of Brian Jones they were.
So I don't much like them.
And I was pointing out that Jagger was a hypocrite when he wrote those lyrics and is every time he sings them.
-
I'm trying to compile a list of references to the JFK,RFK,MLK assassinations in songs, apart from those already mentioned has anybody got any more to offer?
Cheers
John
The great Bobby Darin, who penned some of the most best protest songs ever, was devastated when Bobby Kennedy was murdered. He wrote "In Memoriam" about the train that carried RFK's body to his burial site.
Darin was one of the mourners at the cemetery holding a candle. The casket arrived late because of all the mourners
lining the track. By then it was too dark for workers to cover the grave so Darin stood all night guarding the gravesite and wouldn't leave until the workers finished covering the grave the next day.
In Memoriam
He's a ruthless opportunist
And he motivates by greed
He's just the way his father was
And that we sure don't need
So they all cried out destroy him
For he wants to see us drowned
They never understood him
So they put him in the ground.
Now some had stood for hours
And some sat on the grass
Listening to their radios
For where the train had passed
And a crowd will get impatient
As the clock hands turn around
They never understood him
So they put him in the ground.
They handed out some candles
To the somber weary crowd
And told us not to light them
Till our eyes beheld the shroud
Not even at that moment
Could there be tranquility
I could feel them push and argue
Hey, sit down, I cannot see
They never understood him
So they put him in the ground.
When the fathers closed their bibles
And the family left the site
The ropes and walls and hedges
Kind of faded in the night
Replaced by all the people
Who made a prayerful sound
They never understood him
So they put him in the ground.
Some people say the eighth of June
But the morning of the ninth
The workmen gently lowered him
By the beam of three work lights
Easy, take it easy
Set him down real slow
He'd been on some rougher trips
But he couldn't tell them so
They never understood him
So they put him in the ground.
Now no man has the answers
And he was just a man
And yet I can't help feelin'
That he knew a better plan
A shorter road to justice
On the trip that's freedom bound
But they never understood him
So they put him in the ground.
-
Mick penned the ballad 'Sympathy for the devil', which appeared on the 'Beggars Banquet' album. The Stones, in time, dropped it from their play list as it seemed to provoke people to violent behaviour.
The willing after the fact complicity of everybody in accepting the obfuscation re the assassins true nature is what the song deals with. You and I. The Fascist and the silent bystander.
I don't think it was the lyrics that provoked people to violent behavior. I think it was the fact that the Stones hired hell's angels as bodyguards for the Altamont concert, paid them with cases of beer, let them get drunk as hell, then were silent bystanders as the angels physically assaulted (and rendered unconscious) Marty Balin of the Jefferson Airplane who performed before the Stones. When Mick finally took to the stage he shouldn't have been surprised when his drunk and out of control hell's angels stabbed an audience member dead, all visible on film, as he pranced about singing.
Mick and the Stones never acknowledged their complicity in the murder of the audience member who was assassinated by their employees.
But I do acknowledge that Mick was qualified to write about murder and complicity given the Stone's complicity in planting Frank Thorogood, another one of their employees, in the house at pooh corner to harass and murder Brian Jones--the Stones founder and most brilliant musician.
http://archive.salon.com/ent/col/srag/2000.../gimme_shelter/
http://www.amazon.com/Brian-Jones-Killed-C...g/dp/1900924811
When Don McLean penned his ballad about Buddy Holly, he pulled no punches in describing Mick Jagger at Altamont:
"So come on: jack be nimble, jack be quick!
Jack flash sat on a candlestick
Cause fire is the devil’s only friend.
Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in hell
Could break that satan’s spell.
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite,
I saw satan laughing with delight
The day the music died"
-
My point being that we have been deliberately selected to be under represented by forum moderators, and this was done, in my opinion, as an insult !
We are not the United Nations ...
Darn. I was looking forward to having Hugo Chavez come here and call Bush "El Diablo."
I'll send him an email, see if he is available. If not I will happily call El Presidente anything you require.
I appreciate the offer, and I must say that you are a full service moderator. Ok you're on.
I want you to call him what he really is: irrelevant.
He's the puppet the regime created, props up and controls. Charlie Mccarthy was more life-like and human.
So call him irrelevant.
Please and thank you.
And say it in Spanish like Prez Chavez would.
-
Hi Myra
I like your take on this.
Have you seen a short thread entitled Freedom From War - The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World?
I still find JFK's disarmament proposals staggering for their audacious abandonment of nationalistic 'one-upmanship' in favour of a commonsensical, step-by-step approach to building global trust and securing worldwide disarmament.
I also find it remarkable how little comment this speech and the associated State Department Paper attracts.
I looked at your thread Sid. Almost a year ago you were noticing the same thing I've just noticed. In your case you're quoting his speech to the UN General Assembly--now at this URL: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...ons09251961.htm
(they've moved it).
Here's another of his addresses to the UN: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...bly09201963.htm
Between those speeches and the space race speeches it's getting quite apparent that the President, from the first months of his term to the end, was intent on peace and would not be dragged into a cold war or a hot war or any kind of war so that LBJ's Brown & Root could become Bush's Halliburton by raking in blood money. There's no way President Kennedy would get us mired in Vietnam or anyplace else; that was clear from the start, which meant he was a marked man from the start.
He was a true visionary, a real leader, and a peace president. The non-stop propaganda that claims he was cut from the same cloth as LBJ, that he would have sent tens of thousands of poor boys to Vietnam to fight a rich man's war, is brazen. And sadly quite successful. I have to dispute that very point with people nearly every time I post on any political forum.
Then and now the CIA & Bush/Rove propagandists have done very well using the tactic of accusing their opponent of the very things they're guilty of.
More people need to see, hear, read these speeches; read his documents and national security memos and relevant reports...
We need to put every accessible piece of video on youtube...
'Cause once people see and hear the man himself things will start to click. His own words are just the best evidence to show the reason he was murdered. 'Cause he was a damn peace-monger and the sociopath capitalists wouldn't stand for it.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noswW9LtXGU...ted&search=
Who says the protests were ( only ) against the Vietnam War?
That Ford was not elected because of Watergate?
Peter, that's remarkable footage. Just chilling, and sorta encouraging...
I'm trying to figure out how to add it to the youtube group. Is it possible to point to an existing video? I'm flailing.
Traditional with additional lyrics by jim mcguinn
He was a friend of mine
He was a friend of mine
His killing had no purpose
No reason, or rhyme
He was a friend of mine
He was in dallas town
He was in dallas town
Form a sixth floor window
A gunner shot him down
He died in dallas town
He never knew my name
He never knew my name
Though I never met him
I knew him just the same
Oh, he was a friend of mine
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/byrds/he+was+...e_20026412.html
The lyrics don't quite jibe with the comments made before the song... "sixth floor window"?
It's the comments before the song that say what needs to be said.
Well, Bobby Darin was proud of his protégé Jim/Roger Mcguinn. He taught him a lot about folk singing. Then Roger flew the coup and popularized folk music all over again in the post-Beatles era. I know Roger looks up to his mentor even to this day for his sincerity and purity and passion about politics and human rights. He's said so in many interviews.
Darin was one more casualty of the 60's political murders. When Bobby Kennedy was assassinated it destroyed him.
-
Just a question regarding George Jefferies himself; does anyone know if he is the same George Jefferies who at the time of the assassination, was on the Executive Committee at Universal Life and Accident Insurance Co.?
James
The answer is yes. Thank you Gary Mack.
James
Do you think that fact is significant to the assassination James?
Myra,
At this stage, the answer to that is no.
James
Thank you Bernice and James for the info/reply.
-
Just a question regarding George Jefferies himself; does anyone know if he is the same George Jefferies who at the time of the assassination, was on the Executive Committee at Universal Life and Accident Insurance Co.?
James
The answer is yes. Thank you Gary Mack.
James
Do you think that fact is significant to the assassination James?
-
Message from Gary Mack:
Reuters writer Ed Stoddard wondered how and why the Jefferies film might be studied by conspiracy "buffs," so I told him that some conspiracy "researchers" would look at how Kennedy's coat was bunched and whether that helped explain one of his wounds. I used the term "bunched" because that is the term most researchers have used over the years. Stoddard's paragraph is an accurate account, in my opinion. Here it is: "The president's coat is clearly if briefly seen bunched up on his back -- a detail that will be scrutinized by conspiracy theorists who see evidence of a plot in, among other things, the fact the bullet wounds on his jacket and body did not appear to match."
The film is irrelevant re matters occuring on Elm Street in DP on Nov 22nd 1963... (we and THEY know that)
Perhaps as ole Gerald Posner makes his rounds of talk shows on FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC fielding all those powder-puffs questions he's sure to be asked, he'll be kind enough to quote Gary Mack eluding to your above.
I sure Posner no doubt will comment on how GREAT Jackie looks 60 seconds before her husband is shot to death with wounds in the back and head. Immediately after he states how Jeffries film supports the contention of the WCR...
Exactly!...Forget the jacket !... look at the wound on the body and where people who saw it, described it's location. Even S A Sibert says it was where the autopsy photo shows it, and apparently he was the first to spot it when the body was turned over, and it's why he doesn't accept the SBT (See William Laws intv. of James Sibert )
So who among us will write a letter to the NY Times that they may or may not publish under the pretense fair and balanced op-eding?
The same question applies to MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC etc--the whole propaganda parade.
Should the chores be divided up? Should we each do it?
-
This immediately raises the question of "what agency" "handled" the new film
before it was made public, and was the "jacket bunched up" in the original
and what did Posner know and when did he know it?
Seems a little TOO ORCHESTRATED to me.
Jack
A musical answer, aka...
The CIA Lullaby
(Ahem)
HUSH little babies, dont say a word
Poppy’s gonna buy you a mockingbird
And when that mockingbird does sing
Poppy’s gonna buy it diamond ring
But if the bird song just don’t fly
Poppy’s gonna try with another lie
So when that President gets killed
Luce is gonna publish Z-flam stills
The film will frame a Harvey goat
So you’ll believe what Warren wrote
But if you tend to disbelieve
There are more writers to deceive
Tho’ when the HSCA’s born
The party line will be transformed
If congress shows conspiracy
Then we’ll need a new patsy
The mafia will fill the bill
‘Cause we all know they’re born to kill
Ignore the fact they work for us
That’s not a point we want to stress
If “mob dunnit” seems absurd
Poppy’s gonna send more mockingbirds
They’ll fly full circle to proclaim
The Oswald tale still fits the frame
Then when that bird flock drops its load
You should think the Case is Closed
And if you really buy that bull
Then you’ll be the dumbest little babes in the world
(Thank you; thank you very much.)
-
Hmmmmmmmm?
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Single Bullet, Single Gunman
By GERALD POSNER
A never-before-seen home movie showing President John F.
Kennedy's motorcade just before his assassination
definitively resolves one of the case's enduring
controversies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/opinion/...l?th&emc=th
February 21, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Single Bullet, Single Gunman
By GERALD POSNER
THE ability to use advanced forensics and minuscule traces of DNA to
solve crimes, even cold cases decades old, has turned many Americans
into armchair sleuths seeking to “solve” the unexpected deaths of
people like Princess Diana and Anna Nicole Smith. But sometimes,
old-fashioned evidence is as useful in solving puzzles as anything
under a nuclear microscope.
Last weekend, a never-before-seen home movie was made public showing
President John F. Kennedy’s motorcade just before his assassination. An
amateur photographer, George Jefferies, took the footage and held onto
it for more than 40 years before casually mentioning it to his
son-in-law, who persuaded him to donate it to the Sixth Floor Museum in
Dallas. The silent 8-millimeter color film was of interest to most
people simply because it showed perhaps the clearest close-up of
Jacqueline Kennedy taken that morning.
But to assassination researchers, the footage definitively resolves one
of the case’s enduring controversies: that the bullet wound on
Kennedy’s back, as documented and photographed during the autopsy, did
not match up with the location of the bullet hole on the back of his
suit jacket and shirt. The discrepancy has given conspiracy theorists
fodder to argue that the autopsy photos had been retouched and the
report fabricated.
This is more than an academic debate among ballistics buffs. It is
critical because if the bullet did enter where shown on the autopsy
photos, the trajectory lines up correctly for the famous “single
bullet” theory ? the Warren Commission hypothesis that one bullet
inflicted wounds to both Kennedy and Gov. John Connally of Texas.
However, if the hole in the clothing was the accurate mark of where the
bullet entered, it would have been too low for a single bullet to have
inflicted all the wounds, and would provide evidence of a second
assassin.
For years, those of us who concluded that the single-bullet theory was
sound, still had to speculate that Kennedy’s suit had bunched up during
the ride, causing the hole to be lower in the fabric than one would
expect. Because the holes in the shirt and jacket align perfectly, if
the jacket was elevated when the shot struck, the shirt also had to
have been raised.
Some previously published photos taken at the pivotal moment showed
Kennedy’s jacket slightly pushed up, but nothing was definitive.
Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists have done everything to disprove that
the jacket was bunched. Some used grainy photos or film clips to
measure minute distances between Kennedy’s hairline and his shirt, what
they dubbed the “hair-to-in-shoot distance.”
The new film has finally resolved the issue. At the end of the clip, as
the camera focuses on the backs of the president and first lady,
Kennedy’s suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers creased
together. Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first
shot, Kennedy’s suit jacket was precisely in the position to
misrepresent the bullet’s entry point.
While the film solves one mystery, it leaves another open: estimates
are that at least 150,000 people lined the Dallas motorcade route that
fateful day, so there must be many other films and photographs out
there that have never come to light. Those who have them should bear in
mind that even the most innocuous-seeming artifacts, like the Jefferies
tape, can sometimes put enduring controversies to rest. As Gary Mack,
the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum said the other day, “The bottom
line is, don’t throw anything away.”
Gerald Posner is the author of “Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the
Assassination of J.F.K.”
Ah, they're on a roll. The NY Times--all the propaganda that fits they print. The paper of record for the CIA.
Poser sure was ready with that piece of... "Op-Ed.
But there is no doubt much more to come as always from our fine feathered mockingbird friends.
However I think in the days leading up to May 29 there will be an especially high number of bird droppings.
Note the framing in the opening paragraph:
"cold cases decades old, has turned many Americans into armchair sleuths seeking to “solve” the unexpected deaths of
people like Princess Diana and Anna Nicole Smith." So JFK assassination researchers are lumped in with readers of trashy tabloids obsessing on Anna Nicole Smith. And they sneer at researchers into Princess Diana's murcer while they're at it. That blurb has it all; it's pithy and mocking. Hmmm, mocking, bird--are those CIAers clever or what?
Frank Luntz, would be proud.
Frank Luntz may be the ghost-writer...
(Oh John, I need to check and see of Luntz is included in your propaganda page. If not, I think he should be.)
"Single Bullet, Single Gunman."
"definitively resolves"
"The new film has finally resolved the issue."
"Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot"
"Kennedy’s suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers creased together."
"Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot,"
"Kennedy’s suit jacket was precisely in the position to misrepresent the bullet’s entry point."
"the film solves one mystery"
CASE CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nothing to see here move along.
(Oh, and if anyone finds more evidence, by all means turn it over to Gary Mack so that he can, you know, take care of it.)
-
Administrative note: I didn't see this subject in the forum, or the index, or in search results.
Disclaimer: Sometimes I don't see stuff that's there.
Ok, I'm talkin' to someone about President Kennedy after a third person made the party-line claim that the President was a war-monger blah blah blah. And Someone makes an observation that I think is fantastic and I'd love to take credit for (dagnabbit). Someone states:
"I've been thinking lately that Kennedy's effort to go to the moon was a way to re-direct the military industrial complex away from war and into a peaceful endeavor.... I think it was a truly bold, brilliant move by President Kennedy to launch the space age."
And I think "Ooooo!" Beyond that I start looking at the President's speeches describing his vision for manned space exploration.
I found his speech to congress in which he announced his plans to go to the moon. That speech was shortly after the Bay of Pigs set-up so there was likely some image polishing/distraction going on in addition to the space race element. Also found his famous speech at Rice University in Houston.
I'll quote some excerpts of each speech. I'd love to get input from y'all on whether "Someone" is on to Something.
I'm presenting them in reverse chronological order because there's video/audio of the Rice speech, along with the transcript, which makes it very special. This video shows how "inspiring" (to quote Helen Thomas who regularly cites Kennedy as her favorite president), charismatic, poetic, and witty the President was. Highly recommended viewing.
And it's short, so it's very watchable... after we get past the stupefying introductions that is. Unfortunately two of the intros are from those winkin' co-conspirators Albert Thomas and LBJ (http://www.rense.com/general40/thewnk.htm ). (As an editorial aside, one of the worst things about researching the President's murder is seeing that LBJ thug behind him smirking.) Anyway, back to the point.
Text of President John Kennedy’s Rice Stadium Moon Speech, September 12, 1962
(Short speech with video and transcript here)
http://www1.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/ricetalk.htm
Excerpts:
“Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.”
“Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.
We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again.”
(End of speech) “Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.”
President John F. Kennedy's Man on the Moon Speech
Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs, delivered on May 25, 1961 before a joint session of Congress.
(Long speech)
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1960s/a/jfkmoon.htm
Excerpts:
“But while we talk of sharing and building and the competition of ideas, others talk of arms and threaten war.”
“I cannot end this discussion of defense and armaments without emphasizing our strongest hope: the creation of an orderly world where disarmament will be possible. Our aims do not prepare for war--they are efforts to discourage and resist the adventures of others that could end in war.”
"A third asset is our desire for peace. It is sincere, and I believe the world knows it. We are proving it in our patience at the test ban table, and we are proving it in the UN where our efforts have been directed to maintaining that organization's usefulness as a protector of the independence of small nations. In these and other instances, the response of our opponents has not been encouraging.
Yet it is important to know that our patience at the bargaining table is nearly inexhaustible, though our credulity is limited that our hopes for peace are unfailing, while our determination to protect our security is resolute. For these reasons I have long thought it wise to meet with the Soviet Premier for a personal exchange of views. A meeting in Vienna turned out to be convenient for us both; and the Austrian government has kindly made us welcome. No formal agenda is planned and no negotiations will be undertaken; but we will make clear America's enduring concern is for both peace and freedom--that we are anxious to live in harmony with the Russian people--that we seek no conquests, no satellites, no riches--that we seek only the day when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
(I feel like saying "amen.")
-
It is truly amazing how we have the "bunched up" theory to explain the inconvenient location of bullet holes, the "magic bullet" theory to explain the total lack of damage on a missile that supposedly caused 7 wounds and the "neuromuscular jet effect" to explain the head shot's violation of the laws of physics. Yet the conspiracy theorists are the "wackos."
...
That is one of the best comments ever Don. I'd make it my sig line if President Kennedy wasn't so darn quotable.
Imagine ... In 1964, the official USG investigation of the assassination concludes that, based upon the available medical, eyewitness, earwitness, photographic, ballistic, and other forensic evidence, JFK was the victim of a conspiracy, likely domestic in origin.
Imagine ... At the same time, a small, vocal, impassioned group of self-styled "critics" appears and argues that one man -- LHO -- without assistance of any form or fashion, did it all. Their conclusion rests upon a theory that a single bullet caused seven separate wounds to the president and the Texas governor, a characterization of LHO as a "troubled loner" and "marksman" with "Communist leanings," and all the rest of the nutter nonsense.
How long would these critics' arguments have lasted in the public consciousness? How soon would they have been laughed off the planet?
It is the imprimatur of the parent state alone that preserves the lie.
And so our enemy is known.
Ah, nicely done Charles. Just flip things around and the LNers sound psychotic. Of course in reality many of them are more strategic than psychotic.
-
It is truly amazing how we have the "bunched up" theory to explain the inconvenient location of bullet holes, the "magic bullet" theory to explain the total lack of damage on a missile that supposedly caused 7 wounds and the "neuromuscular jet effect" to explain the head shot's violation of the laws of physics. Yet the conspiracy theorists are the "wackos."
...
That is one of the best comments ever Don. I'd make it my sig line if President Kennedy wasn't so darn quotable.
-
It has also been said to pull the researchers away from their studies.
This pretense of so called "new evidence" which has also been used in the past as a ploy...
and will be again no doubt......
The brace..without the wrappings..
B
Wow Bernice! That is a fantastic photo. Thank you!
Do you know what year it was taken?
He looks young, but not as skeletal as he was when very young, pre-addison's diagnosis.
Is This The Same Man In All Three Photographs
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
If karma really existed they would all have died of plague.
When the widow of Lamar Hunt popped up at the Superbowl kickoff this year I wanted to jump through the screen at her. Her husband's victim had his head blown off and she gets to go to the Superbowl like some hero.
Yeah, Nelson Bunker Hunt, I think you're right. The one who was behind the horrendous "Wanted for treason" signs that greeted their victim in Dallas. Here's the Wiki on him (and since Wiki is right wing this is probably sanitized):
"...He is notable for having participated in cornering the world silver market during Jimmy Carter's presidency and the high inflationary period of the late 1970's and 1980. His actions caused the price first to rise almost ten-fold, and then to plummet shortly thereafter, which ultimately led to his bankruptcy.
...
The son of Texas oil billionaire H. L. Hunt, who was believed to be the richest man in the world at the time of his death, Nelson Bunker Hunt also entered the oil business.... The late sports tycoon Lamar Hunt was Hunt's younger brother.
...
He has donated millions to Christian groups such as Promise Keepers, Campus Crusade for Christ, Christian World Liberation Front, Moral Majority, Christian Broadcasters Network, Strategies to Eliminate Poverty (STEP). At one point, he was active in a number of organizations, including the John Birch Society and the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Bunker_Hunt