Myra Bronstein

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.

Oh yeah. Real real good observation Anthony. And I'll add that the public witnessed multiple stolen elections on/after 2000, then the Reichstag burned... uh I mean the WTC burned miraculously putting PNAC plans into motion. One of the biggest differences between their murder of President Kennedy and their murder of the thousands in NY though is that we now have the internet to discuss the increasingly obvious. (Tho' they've already started attacking the internet... "tubes.") And those who are aware of some history know that there are strong connections between 1963 and the present, including: -A Bush on both ends (and more in-between), -The CIA's plan for a fake "terrorism" incident to blame on a country to justify invading. Blocked by a great president in '63. implemented under a puppet-"president" in 2001.

Supposedly. They have an exhibit number and are posted on Lancer's medical evidence page. http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/ Uh... damn good question. I never noticed that before. Hm, interesting thought. So I google to see the supposed components of the brace: "Kennedy often wore a back brace and on the day he was shot, he was wearing a brace that consisted of a canvas brace with metal stays, together with an Ace bandage with extra padding." http://search.abaa.org/dbp2/book177114613.html It's possible that the bullet hit a metal section and slowed it as you speculate. Of course they wouldn't show that in an exhibit photo 'cause that'd prove the back wound. I'm 99% sure the President's clothing was laundered by the secret service men who were too hungover to protect the living president but suddenly alert and busy cleaning up evidence after the murder. Gov Connelly's suit was cleaned... I'll look for some confirmation about the shirt/suit scrubbing.

Myra, if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket -- wouldn't we see it in every photo of the jacket? Instead, the jacket shifted slightly with every slight change in his posture. It is normal for the jacket to elevate a fraction of an inch or so. It has been widely claimed -- now most recently by Gary Mack -- that these fraction-of-an-inch fabric folds entail the movement of multiple inches of fabric. And yet those who promote this notion never bother to make an actual argument for it! All they've done is repeat this non sequitur over and over until it somehow gained credibility -- sad state of affairs in the JFK research community, if you ask me. Good god Cliff. All I did was post a photo of the infamous back brace and clearly state: "Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket." In other words I wasn't promoting anything or taking a stand one war or another, for or against. Just posting a photo of one thing President Kennedy wore when he was murdered that is rarely seen. Myra, I was making an observation about your comment. I'm not attributing anything to you one way or the other. It seems like a simple question: if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket, why doesn't this impact show in all the photos and films, not just a couple? Yeah, I know Cliff. Thanks. Hey, I'm esp interested in the timing of the film release since I think it's possible that it wasn't just discovered.

Ok, just supposin' here. Speculating about the timing of the film release complete with reinforcement of the party line, to "remind" the public (as Poppy Bush so helpfully did at Ford's funeral) that Lee Oswald is IN FACT the lone assassin. Never mind the reality that the man was never tried let alone convicted. And of course articles about the film consistently slip in the sneering little jab about "conspiracy theorists" to discredit those who think. Further supposin' that the film could have been "discovered" at any point and held until it'd be most advantageous to party liners. Since, as many have said here, the film doesn't appear to offer much if any of value to the body of evidence in the open case of President Kennedy's murder, then it's possible it was strategically released to prep the public for the heavy duty propaganda to come.... http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-A...TF8&s=books "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" (Hardcover) by Vincent Bugliosi (Author) # Hardcover: 1632 pages # Publisher: W. W. Norton (May 29, 2007) "Book Description The book that lays all questions to rest. Polls reveal that over 75 percent of Americans believe there was a conspiracy behind Lee Harvey Oswald; some even believe Oswald was entirely innocent. In this absorbing and historic book—the first ever to cover the entire case—Vincent Bugliosi shows how we have come to believe such lies about an event that changed the course of history. The brilliant prosecutor of Charles Manson and the man who forged an iron-clad case of circumstantial guilt around O. J. Simpson in his best-selling Outrage, Bugliosi is perhaps the only man in America capable of "prosecuting" Oswald for the murder of President Kennedy. His book is a narrative compendium of fact, forensic evidence, reexamination of key witnesses, and common sense. Every detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public. Bugliosi's irresistible logic, command of the evidence, and ability to draw startling inferences shed fresh light on this American nightmare. At last we know what really happened. At last it all makes sense. 32 pages of illustrations." (Calling Mark Lane... Red alert.) Just supposin'.

Myra, if the back brace had an impact on the position of the jacket -- wouldn't we see it in every photo of the jacket? Instead, the jacket shifted slightly with every slight change in his posture. It is normal for the jacket to elevate a fraction of an inch or so. It has been widely claimed -- now most recently by Gary Mack -- that these fraction-of-an-inch fabric folds entail the movement of multiple inches of fabric. And yet those who promote this notion never bother to make an actual argument for it! All they've done is repeat this non sequitur over and over until it somehow gained credibility -- sad state of affairs in the JFK research community, if you ask me. Good god Cliff. All I did was post a photo of the infamous back brace and clearly state: "Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket." In other words I wasn't promoting anything or taking a stand one war or another, for or against. Just posting a photo of one thing President Kennedy wore when he was murdered that is rarely seen.

Here's a photo of the President's back brace, FWIW. Hard to tell if it could be a factor the position of the jacket. Snagged from: http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/brace.jpg

I'll try to bark with you Bill. John Thanks John, I know you've been there and know how frustrating it can be. I am quite confident that if we hit up the Sub Committee members they will hold hearings on the JFK Act and sturr up the pot, and put those who destroyed files on the hot seat, subpoena those who failed to comply with the Act and pry loose some records that have been wrongfully with held. Maybe there's more foreigners interested than Americans. BK Hey, I'm interested. I'm just so soft-spoken that I rarely express myself. Any guidance on how to channel that interest, aside from the general "write your congress person"?

We are not the United Nations ... Darn. I was looking forward to having Hugo Chavez come here and call Bush "El Diablo."

Glad you brought that up Ron. What the hell happened to Stone? Did he and Vince Bugliosi get MKultra'd? Threatened? Paid a zillion dollars? They both just went off the rails. Bugliosi seems to be at the point of no return, but I was holding out hope that Stone just had a brain cramp or something. Does anyone know of an interview with Stone in which he explains his sudden willingness to echo the party line?

Great find. I'm surprised because I've consistently read that Ferrie rented the plane to fly in thugs for the CIA hit. In fact I'm not sure what to believe. "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." http://www.joanmellen.net/truth-3.html

Marina herself has emphatically renounced her own 1964 testimony, so no I don't believe it. And Mark Lane described the horrendous pressure the "government" thugs applied before her testimony, in "Rush to Judgement" I believe. http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Judgment-Mark-L...TF8&s=books http://www.jfkresearch.com/marina/marina.htm (OW=Oprah, MOP=Marina) OW>You do not believe your husband killed John F. Kennedy? MOP>No -- and it's not an overnight conclusion and it's not because I read books, and this book and that book. It's the responsible statement to make in front of the country that I'm grateful to -- and when I did say that I think Lee killed President Kennedy. OW>You said that 33 years ago. You believed he did. MOP>Absolutely. And the Warren Commission came to the conclusion and this question was asked after all the testimonies were done, "Mrs. Porter now with the evidence in front of you, what you know, what is your conclusion? Was your husband innocent or guilty? You cannot no because some evidence was there and in the middle of the table was a rifle which I identified as Lee's rifle and I was a stupid young girl and right now if you show me my husband's hunting rifle and I would be smart enough to say that I am not sure because up to this date I know nothing about this rifle. I'm not saying it was Lee's or not, but I trusted so blindly that it must be his rifle -- it was a stick with metal. That's all a rifle is to me up to this day. ... OW>Tell me this: do you believe that your husband had nothing to do with the killing -- or -- do you believe . . . MOP>Absolutely nothing. ... OW>You believed what you were told then. Why do you no longer believe? MOP>I started getting evidence that supported, you know, just the factual things -- the witnesses -- why did they say it? Did the documents exist? So, by the time that I gave an interview on the 25th anniversary, I had enough confidence in (the) documentation. Lee Harvey Oswald is not guilty -- and I thought that in good America there are journalists and people who will come and work it. Now it's 33 years after that and we will go back and work on that and now it will say "alleged" assassin. So 25 years after (the) assassination, I knew he was not guilty, but I knew you needed more information. So I started getting some more because I know the answers, but how can I prove it to you, (so) that you could touch it, smell it and whatever. ... OW>So, you're saying, for 20 years you lived and believed that he WAS the assassin? MOP>Yes and I did not know why the people made such a big, uh, just to write the books or make a big story out of nothing so when I started digging in -- I have been lied to. OW>You believe the Warren Commission lied to us? MOP>(The) conclusion? Yes, because the answers of Lee's innocence -- guess where I found it? OW>Where? MOP>In the Warren Commission Report, in the testimony. So every one of you, it's all in the documentation A lot of things admitted. So I learned . . . OW>Are you saying that the Warren Commission Report says he's innocent? MOP>No, I said I . . . the Warren Commission lied about their conclusion. OW>OK MOP>. . . which is the report. And then comes the 26 volumes of the testimony, of the evidence, which does not support their conclusion -- only by omission. Another thing . . . OW>Do you think he was involved in some way? MOP>I'll tell you in a second. I did not know that (the) Warren Commission had, not the Attorney General, but someone under him -- Katzenbach -- it was his memo, not ordering, but telling (the) Warren Commission that they must find Lee Harvey Oswald guilty. You don't conduct (an) investigation with presumptions. OW>. . . that you must find him guilty MOP>. . . so, when you read this, you can see how carefully they sifted only to get the thing to prove one thing. OW>. . . to prove the theory that one man did it alone. MOP>Yes, and the witnesses or anybody who said differently or discarded and put away -- not the photographs, not the testimony -- nothing there. ...

Myra, Don't dissent, but am disinclined to reduce the deep politics of such events to one cause or motive. As a rule of thumb when examining the context of high-level political assassinations, we see something I can only describe as "confluence" - a group of causes and motives of differing levels of importance to the coalition that forms prior to the murder itself. The prime-mover(s) neither need nor desire participation, but they do need to be sure of tacit acquiescence. Paul Makes sense Paul. Do you think that Lincoln's plan to print money from the US Treasury instead of the Federal Reserve was a factor in his murder?

I am still surprised that the govt released the Zapruder film. I know it's a concoction, but it still shows (at least to me) President Kennedy getting shot from the front right. This section of his head is facing the camera! Kathy I don't believe the gov't willingly released the film, Jim Garrison made them release it: "Garrison was able to subpoena the Zapruder film and show it in public for the first time. Until the trial, the film had not been seen by the public, and bootleg copies made by assassination investigators working with Garrison led to the film being widely distributed." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Garrison (This jibes with everything else I've read.) Still, by the time Garrison got access to the tape it had been in the clutches of Time/Life/Luce/CIA for years. To me that means that it was and is useless as evidence.

Surprising to see a film in color. Of course I've seen color photos of President Kennedy but this is startling. Any idea where the film has been all these years, when it was discovered, when Gary Mack received it, and from whom? I'm eager for Jack to see it...

Thanks John. I appreciate the good work you do here. Hi Myra. Thanks for the comments. Any resources which i use all the time i put up on my main page, so as to gain easy access in case i lose my bookmarks. Hm, that could mean you use firefox. It sometimes loses my bookmarks when it crashes, and it crashes a lot.

If memory serves, John Geraghty started a thread on exactly that months ago. Apologies if it was someone else. Ah, thank you Mike. Your memory served us both.

Good summary! Don't forget McAdams... Kidding. I'd add http://www.ctka.net/home.html (CTKA/Probe magazine) and http://www.prouty.org/ (Fletcher Prouty's site, esp the section on the great Jim Garrison). And of course http://www.jfklibrary.org/ (the JFK Library), and ...argh! What's that site with the archive of tapes from the oval office? And of course http://www.history-matters.com/. And http://www.jfk-online.com/home.html, and Vince Palamara's e-book on the SS conspirators. More e-books... Hey, we should have (& maintain) a thread on web resources. I think. What do y'all think?

Bad news, Charlie – according to Otto Eisenschiml’s landmark, if somewhat mistitled, Why Was Lincoln Murdered? (London: Faber & Faber, 1937), there was photographic jiggery-pokery involved in the Lincoln case. In the chapter entitled “The Prisoners at the Bar,” Eisenschiml writes: “…the photograph of Booth used throughout the whole trial was not a picture of John Wilkes Booth at all, but one of his brother Edwin” (p.265). He goes on to make a compelling case that Booth’s pursuers were similarly armed with the wrong photograph; and demonstrates alteration of the stenographic record to conceal this photographic subterfuge. The point being, of course, that Booth was allowed to escape in order to blaze a trail to the Confederacy, thus concealing the real identities and locations of the plotters. Paul I thought Booth was allowed to escape (we agree on that point) because he was a hit man for the banks, who murdered President Lincoln due to his plan to print money from the US Treasure instead of the Federal Reserve.

Heck no it's not too speculative for this forum Charlie. That's what we do here. It's a think tank. People are visual creatures; seeing is believing; images stay with us. I think you make a powerful point. The manipulation of photos and film has served the regime well. The Z-film is worse than useless; it's detrimental to the truth. So many use it as reference when it is clearly manipulated and discredited. Hey, you didn't even mention the infamous photo of Oswald's head bobbing around on someone else's body. It's a blatant fake, but how many know that?

I didn't know that was your site Robin! I use it all the time and never knew. Sure appreciate the resource.

Absolutely. And that can be seen very clearly in the early evidence and reports, versus the later scrubbed reports, of JFK Jr's murder. And/or later testimony will yield to intimidation and coercion from one of the regime agencies.

Thank you John.

Man oh man where to begin? -The transcript excerpts transcribed by Lifton, and posted by Jack, of Moorman and/or Hill describing a couple of shots from the knoll, the motorcade stopping, and around four additional shots. Also notable is what they did not say, e.g., no cooberating testimony of KIllerman's claims that the President said something. -The photos of CIA thugs in Dealey Plaza. Some of them are unmistakable. -The whole BROKEN (not admissible in a real court) chain of evidence over the President's body. Starting with the fact that it was stolen from Parkland at gunpoint by the SS thugs who were too hungover or something to protect a living president. The diversion of the body to Walter Reed for alteration. The photos of the metal casket being put on the plane and testimony of the Bethesda aids who received the President's body in a body bag. The photos of a tampered with body, with wounds different from those in Dallas, that are presented as "autopsy" photos. And the conflicting testimony of the two sets of doctors over the wounds. Oh hell I can't name just three, or just ten..., but this one says it all at a glance: -The infamous photo of that bastard LBJ and Thomas smiling and winking right after the accessory to murder was sworn in. That was not a supportive wink; it was the self-satisfied wink of partners in crime.

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...)