Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
Some long-harbored questions regarding the back brace:
Are the braces depicted in the photo above those worn on 11/22/63?
Supposedly. They have an exhibit number and are posted on Lancer's medical evidence page.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/
If so, have they been laundered?If no laundering, why no blood?
Uh... damn good question. I never noticed that before.
Did the brace ride high enough to cover the 3rd thoracic vertebra?If so, might a round entering at that position have had its velocity radically slowed by brace materials, thus accounting for the shallow wound?
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.
And a related query:The blood patterns on the rear of the shirt and the rear of the suit jacket are quite different, with the former showing far greater spread and, one assumes, saturation.
Could this difference be attributed to limitations of photo reproductions? Had the jacket been laundered but the shirt kept in "original" condition?
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.
-
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:
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'.
-
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:
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:
-
Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree after all,
BK
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"?
-
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 remember reading years ago that Oliver Stone bought the film rights to Marita Lorenz's autobiography "Marita," which of course includes the alleged caravan from Miami to Dallas to shoot JFK. Just as well that he didn't make the movie. Stone has forsaken conspiracy theorists anyway with "World Trade Center."
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?
-
Local man's airplane figures in JFK Assassination
By Rebecca L. Sandlin/ \n rsandlin@noblesvilledailytimes.com
From Noblesville (Indiana) Daily Times.
Noblesville resident Don Roberts had no idea what was sitting out in the shed next door to his eastside home, located at the Noblesville airport on Promise Road. He knew it was a Stinson Voyager single-engine airplane manufactured in 1946. More significantly, it turned out to be a piece of American history.
Known around these parts as a local historian, Roberts said a call came out of the blue Jan. 3 from a man in Brockton, Mass., he'd never met, named Steve Roy.
"He said, 'Would the numbers on your airplane be 8293K?' and I said, 'Yes,'" Roberts recalled. "He said, 'Well you've got a famous airplane.'"
Roy said Roberts seemed startled to hear the news about his plane, which he's owned since 2001. "When he indicated to me that he was a history buff, he got kind of excited about it that he owned a little piece of history," Roy said. "He helped me by giving me a current picture of the aircraft."
Roy went on to tell Roberts that the Stinson figures in heavily with the death of President John F. Kennedy. The man who owned the plane, David W. Ferrie, was a figure investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and alleged by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison to be involved in Kennedy's assassination plot. Moreover, Roy told Roberts accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald had learned how to fly in the plane.
Roy, who is writing a book about Ferrie's life, found Roberts' name after he did a Google search of the plane's "N" aircraft number. That number remains the same for the life of the aircraft.
Roberts, 69, a former Noblesville High School teacher, set out to verify Roy's claims for himself. He contacted the Federal Aviation Administration for the plane's history and scoured historical texts about the JFK assassination.
It turns out that Ferrie owned the plane from 1947 until shortly before his death in 1967. Among other things, Ferrie was an aeronautics teacher at a Catholic high school, a pilot for Eastern Air Lines and was involved in several roles with the Civil Air Patrol. It was in New Orleans in 1955 that a 15-year-old Oswald joined as a cadet in the CAP of which Ferrie was a leader.
Roy sent Roberts several pictures, including one of his airplane when it was nearly new with Ferrie standing in front of the craft, and another of Ferrie and Oswald at a CAP function in 1955.
"He became anti-Castro and he got involved with Cuban freedom fighters in New Orleans, and it is alleged that my airplane made several trips from Florida into Cuba hauling arms and ammunition, and flying out Cuban freedom fighters," Roberts said, adding that Ferrie had an intense hatred of JFK because of his actions during the Bay of Pigs conflict.
Ferrie was subsequently arrested on "morals" charges for inappropriate relations with teenaged boys and lost his job at the airline, was dropped from the CAP and disconnected with the Cuban exile group.
"Through a weird series of events, he ended up working on the legal defense team of the Louisiana crime boss, Carlos Marcello," Roy said, giving him a connection to the Mafia.
Ferrie died of a stroke before Jim Garrison could indict him in connection with the assassination conspiracy. The plane then passed through a number of hands before ending up in Roberts' hangar at the Noblesville airport.
"You can't pick up an assassination book without seeing something about David Ferrie," Roy said. "He's like the key link, if you will, between the hapless lone assassin, Oswald, and Conspiracy Central.
"The people who believe that the CIA had something to do with the assassination use Ferrie as a link. The people who think the anti-Castro Cubans had something to do with it use Ferrie as a link. The people who think the Mafia had something to do with it use Ferrie as a link."
When Roberts told his friend, Noblesville High School history teacher Bruce Hitchcock about the revelation, Hitchcock, himself a JFK historical researcher, was astounded.
"It was quite interesting. You just never know what you're going to come up with," Hitchcock said. "It's been so long and so many people associated with it … It's just one of those things that comes up ever so often that keeps this story alive and of interest to people."
In another coincidental twist, Roberts himself was present at the Bay of Pigs during the same time Ferrie was allegedly involved, when Roberts served in the Navy.
"When I called Steve Roy back in Massachusetts after receiving that big letter from him, I said, 'You might be interested in knowing that I was on the Bay of Pigs invasion,'" he said. "And (there was a) long silence. He said, 'Do you have any pictures?' and I said, 'No, but I have a diary,' and he wanted to know if he could come out here, if I'd take him for a ride in the airplane and he wanted to interview me."
-Thanks to Tom Blackwell for the heads up on this story.
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."
-
Although apparently not many are interested, tho I am very much so, I would like to redirect this thread to what I meant as its more baser roots.
Without what "I personally" believe/speculate to be
very graphic distortions of film and photographic evidence, along with missing xrays and autopsy photos........what is left to produce enough evidence for a prosecutor to even "consider" bringing this case to trial? With this same thought in mind, also please judge what you "truly" believe to be the veracity of the 1964 testimony of Marina Oswald?
...
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.
...
-
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 Treasury instead of the Federal Reserve.
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?
-
Without what "I personally" believe/speculate to be
very graphic distortions of film and photographic evidence, along with missing xrays and autopsy photos........what is left to produce enough evidence for a prosecutor to even "consider" bringing this case to trial? Charlie Black
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.
-
On KDFW (Channel 4 Dallas) news tonight, they showed a new JFK film that was shot about 90 seconds before the assassination. The Sixth Floor museum has possesion of the film, and Gary Mack said that other than museum personel, this was the first time the film was shown publically.
Of interest, was Kennedy's coat, which showed to be unnaturally bunched up in the film. It's a very clear shot. I haven't had time to check and see if the film is on Channel 4's website or on the Sixth Floor's site, but I'll bet it will be showing up soon.
UPDATE: Here's the film from the Sixth Floor Museum site. Thanks Gary, for putting this online.
JWK
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...
-
That's a very good thing you have done, Robin. I had hoped it would be possible. It will also make me less 'timid' at linking/referring to it more often.
Yours, bravehost, spartacus, maryfarrell and lancer image pages are all very valuable resources to the researcher.
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.
-
Hey, we should have (& maintain) a thread on web resources. I think. What do y'all think?
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.
-
That's a very good thing you have done, Robin. I had hoped it would be possible. It will also make me less 'timid' at linking/referring to it more often.
Yours, bravehost, spartacus, maryfarrell and lancer image pages are all very valuable resources to the researcher.
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?
-
I feel that the major deterrent to a legitimate depiction of what occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 has been the manipulation of film and xray.
If this had occured in 1865, and we substituted carriages for cars etc., what do you feel would have been the result of the investigation ?
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.
-
This may be considered too speculative to be engaged on this forum.
I feel that the major deterrent to a legitimate depiction of what occurred in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 has been the manipulation of film and xray.
If this had occured in 1865, and we substituted carriages for cars etc., what do you feel would have been the result of the investigation ?
We of course would be dependent on eye and ear witness testimony as had been done in the previous five millenia, and would therefore, according to the generally accepted modern theory, be not very trustworthy.
I often wonder why they even bothered to have judicial trials before the advent of photography !
I of course am inviting a very "speculative" question as the result of my long held belief, that
manipulated film and photographs have been the conspirators greatest (perhaps only) means of diverting and concealing evidence.
I realize that the question is somewhat strange, but I feel that such a discussion might change the perspective of many investigators.
I would appreciate participation....even if only for your amusement.
Charlie Black
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?
-
Major UPDATE to my webpage !
I have finally upgraded the BANDWIDTH on my website.
From now on hopefully, there should no longer be any more download problems on my MAINPAGE or adverts.
I didn't know that was your site Robin! I use it all the time and never knew. Sure appreciate the resource.
-
The way I see it, "first round" testimony is the cleanest....
Absolutely. And that can be seen very clearly in the early evidence and reports, versus the later scrubbed reports, of JFK Jr's murder.
...Later testimony will always include something they read or heard in the news or from other testimonies....And/or later testimony will yield to intimidation and coercion from one of the regime agencies.
-
By shifting emphasis in what seems two questions, I see one question. My answer to that then is yes.
Not just that though, Kennedy himself was the teeth to ensure its strict implementation and adjustment to counter obvious moves to circumvent it. The following summers would probably have been cooler for everyone. (you probably know what I mean but just in case if you(or anyone) don't understand that play on words lookup(boolean)
"long hot summers" and "civil rights"
Thank you John.
-
If you only had three paragraphs of text and three pieces of evidence {letters, pictures, maps , diagrams ,testimony, ect..}, to convince someone of conspiracy in the JFK Assassination what would your top selections be?
MINE:
FBI agents receiving bullet from JFK's Back. The one that didn't go through his neck and didn't hit Connally.
Evidence: FBI memo.
The written and sworn report of the finding of a Mauser rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD by Dallas lawmen.
Evidence: The actual report.
Ozwald changing seats at the Texas Theater. Sitting beside one person and then sitting beside others in an almost empty theater.
Evidence: Statement of theater patron.
Very interested in your responses,
jim
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.
-
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...)
-
I think is started with Medgar Evers mid 1963, two hours after Kennedy's famous Civil Rights speech.
(of course we can spread our wings and look at the very early struggles and the assassinations there, the Wobblies, Joe Hill, Sacco and Vancetti, and many many others, many unnamed, the 'disappeared' all over the world. All struggling to make the world a better place for all, or standing in the way of those making it a worse place. The millions who fought and killed each others in Their Masters Wars)
The Mississippi Three and the uncounted number of corpses found while looking for them, all victims of White Supremacists.
Note that JFK, MLK, MalcolmX, and RFK (who flew to Medgars brothers (Charles) aid after Medgars assassination, and Charles was with RFK when he was assassinated, all were involved in the struggles of Civil Rights) Then as the Pinko Hippie I (proudly) am I see significance in the deaths of Jimi Hendrix and the other counter culture figures of the moratorium years. And later, Lennon
Then of course we have Che. Allende, Dag Hammarshjold and later Olaf Palme.
______________
On the other hand a number of assassination attempts of people on the other side of the spectrum stand out by their lack of success, Reagan, Wallace etc One notable success, perhaps because it did involve a wider conspiracy was Somoza, the butcher of Nicaragua.
Going back further in time the many unsuccessful attempts on Adolf Hitler.
...
Part of the Mississippi actions were a part of an overall plan to draw Martin Luther King into the "trap" in order that he too could be shot.
...
Thomas,
Would you mind expanding on that? It makes a lot of sense and is very intriguing...
Can you point me to a source, book, website that gives details?
New JFK Dallas film surfaces in Dallas
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.