Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
I don't see a five year pause....
I see a systematic slaughter:
Very true Myra.
And it wasn't only America's leadership that was systematically 'culled'.
I have a soft spot for Ben Barka.
He was disappeared in 1965.
Good point Sid. The CIA is so worldly....
I wasn't aware of Ben Barka until now.
Surprisingly Wiki has a writeup that openly points to the CIA as the likely culprits.
-
...
TO SUMMARIZE:
MOORMAN
1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more
2. WHERE WERE YOU: We stepped out in the street
3. HOW MANY SHOTS: three or four ... there might have been more.
4. WHAT DID MRS. KENNEDY DO: Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him;
and she said: "My God, he's been shot."
5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO: they hesitated just for a moment...and they immediately sped up
6. WHAT DID THE MOTORCYCLES DO: they stopped
7. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: Oh, Lord? North.
8. WHAT DID YOUR PHOTO SHOW MRS. K DOING: he's bent over, and she's... and she
hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car.
HILL:
1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: about 10 or fifteen feet...not anymore than that at all.
2. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT DO: he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap.
3. WHAT DID MRS. K DO: she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot."
4. WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU: There was NO one around us on our side of the street
5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO:The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came
to a momentary halt. After they were momentarily stopped--after the first two shots--THEN
they sped away REAL quickly.
6. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: there's a hill on the other side...and the shots came
from there.
THIS IS FIRST DAY TESTIMONY FROM THE TWO CLOSEST WITNESSES.
Jack
This is fantastic testimony Jack.
I wonder what else is stored and ignored in the archives.
It's very clear that there are at least 4 to 6 shots, at least some from the knoll.
Is there any way we could see the entire transcript?
I will try to post the entire transcript if possible. I posted all the RELEVANT parts.
This is basically from Lifton's notes to himself as he transcribed what he was
hearing in headphones. His notes are interspersed among the transcript itself,
and I will have to go thru and DELETE all of Lifton's notes. However, you will
find that what I deleted was irrelevent, such as where they live, etc. If you
find anything relevant that I deleted, let us know.
Of course, the RELEVANT COMMENTS are:
1. Moorman was in the street, contrary to Z film.
2. Shots came from the knoll, contrary to Z film.
3. Limo came to a stop, contrary to Z film.
4. JFK fell into Jackie's lap, contrary to Z film.
5. Jackie stood up in the car, contrary to Z film.
6. Neither reported seeing head explosion, contrary to Z film.
Jack
NO, never mind Jack. Don't bother if the omitted segments are irrelevant.
Thanks for leaving them out in fact.
Great find.
This stuff should be in a press release, and/or a book...
Any idea if Lifton is planning another book?
Lifton has been working on a new book for about fifteen years. It originally
was to be only on LHO, but Armstrong beat him to the punch. He has now
expanded it to cover the entire case, old evidence and NEW, including the
faking of the Z film. That is why he was excited to find this old KRLD interview
right after the event. He sent copies to several of us who are cooperating
on Zapruder research. He gave me permission to post the transcript, but
not his notes to himself or to us.
Jack
That's quite decent of him to quickly share the transcript revelations and not squirrel them away for his book.
-
...
TO SUMMARIZE:
MOORMAN
1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more
2. WHERE WERE YOU: We stepped out in the street
3. HOW MANY SHOTS: three or four ... there might have been more.
4. WHAT DID MRS. KENNEDY DO: Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him;
and she said: "My God, he's been shot."
5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO: they hesitated just for a moment...and they immediately sped up
6. WHAT DID THE MOTORCYCLES DO: they stopped
7. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: Oh, Lord? North.
8. WHAT DID YOUR PHOTO SHOW MRS. K DOING: he's bent over, and she's... and she
hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car.
HILL:
1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: about 10 or fifteen feet...not anymore than that at all.
2. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT DO: he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap.
3. WHAT DID MRS. K DO: she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot."
4. WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU: There was NO one around us on our side of the street
5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO:The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came
to a momentary halt. After they were momentarily stopped--after the first two shots--THEN
they sped away REAL quickly.
6. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: there's a hill on the other side...and the shots came
from there.
THIS IS FIRST DAY TESTIMONY FROM THE TWO CLOSEST WITNESSES.
Jack
This is fantastic testimony Jack.
I wonder what else is stored and ignored in the archives.
It's very clear that there are at least 4 to 6 shots, at least some from the knoll.
Is there any way we could see the entire transcript?
I will try to post the entire transcript if possible. I posted all the RELEVANT parts.
This is basically from Lifton's notes to himself as he transcribed what he was
hearing in headphones. His notes are interspersed among the transcript itself,
and I will have to go thru and DELETE all of Lifton's notes. However, you will
find that what I deleted was irrelevent, such as where they live, etc. If you
find anything relevant that I deleted, let us know.
Of course, the RELEVANT COMMENTS are:
1. Moorman was in the street, contrary to Z film.
2. Shots came from the knoll, contrary to Z film.
3. Limo came to a stop, contrary to Z film.
4. JFK fell into Jackie's lap, contrary to Z film.
5. Jackie stood up in the car, contrary to Z film.
6. Neither reported seeing head explosion, contrary to Z film.
Jack
NO, never mind Jack. Don't bother if the omitted segments are irrelevant.
Thanks for leaving them out in fact.
Great find.
This stuff should be in a press release, and/or a book...
Any idea if Lifton is planning another book?
-
All I know is that by the time JFK, MLK and RFK were killed, the cultural groundswell toward peace and a more liberal approach was all but dead.
In fact, it struck me how similar those deaths were to the JFK shots themselves. One to get the ball rolling and then two shots close together. One death - then a five year pause, then two deaths close together.
I don't see a five year pause Mark.
I see a systematic slaughter:
-1963--President Kennedy is publicly executed. Robert Kennedy of course is eliminated as Attorney General.
-1964--Ted Kennedy is in a plane crash in which the pilot and one of Kennedy's aides were killed and he likely was supposed to be killed. Instead he spent weeks in a hospital recovering from a severe back injury, a punctured lung, broken ribs, and internal bleeding.
-1965--Malcolm X, after partnering with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., is shot 16 times and dies.
-1968--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is murdered, then two months later Senator Bobby Kennedy is murdered. The murder of Bobby clears the way for Nixon, who could not have beaten Bobby, to "win" the white house.
-1969--Ted Kennedy drives into a "bear trap" (as John Dean put it) wherein he was framed, an accident was faked, and a woman was killed along with his presidential hopes.
-1972--George Wallace is shot so he won't split the right wing vote and hurt Nixon's chances. Nixon "wins" the white house again.
-
...
TO SUMMARIZE:
MOORMAN
1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more
2. WHERE WERE YOU: We stepped out in the street
3. HOW MANY SHOTS: three or four ... there might have been more.
4. WHAT DID MRS. KENNEDY DO: Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him;
and she said: "My God, he's been shot."
5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO: they hesitated just for a moment...and they immediately sped up
6. WHAT DID THE MOTORCYCLES DO: they stopped
7. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: Oh, Lord? North.
8. WHAT DID YOUR PHOTO SHOW MRS. K DOING: he's bent over, and she's... and she
hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car.
HILL:
1. HOW CLOSE TO CAR: about 10 or fifteen feet...not anymore than that at all.
2. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT DO: he pitched forward onto Jackie's lap.
3. WHAT DID MRS. K DO: she fell across him and says "My God, he's been shot."
4. WERE THERE OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU: There was NO one around us on our side of the street
5. WHAT DID THE LIMO DO:The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came
to a momentary halt. After they were momentarily stopped--after the first two shots--THEN
they sped away REAL quickly.
6. WHERE DID THE SHOTS COME FROM: there's a hill on the other side...and the shots came
from there.
THIS IS FIRST DAY TESTIMONY FROM THE TWO CLOSEST WITNESSES.
Jack
This is fantastic testimony Jack.
I wonder what else is stored and ignored in the archives.
It's very clear that there are at least 4 to 6 shots, at least some from the knoll.
Is there any way we could see the entire transcript?
-
Host1 then goes on to name a specific American—in front of the entire gathering—with the named guest present (Guest5) who he has a particular issue with. He complains about Guest5 at great length......
I can’t help but think that hosts who sincerely want to remedy an incivility issue would handle problem guests discretely and considerately, by addressing them privately and/or initiating a new policing process wherein they could deal with the problem guests without a public pillory.
I assume that the guest in question is Ashton Gray. I personally did not see the post in which Ashton accused John Simkin of being CIA, but I have no doubt it happened, and that John's beef was legitimate, and deserved to be publicly addressed. ...
I don't believe that's the case. In the thread where John is discussing a person he says accused him of being a CIA agent
("John Simkin: CIA Agent?" @ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...james+richards) he explicitly rules out Ashton Gray:
That may be, but on THIS thread John wrote:
I have suffered a great deal for preserving your [Ashton Gray's] freedom of speech. In return, you [Ashton Gray] have accused me of defending the CIA. In fact, it seems to me, that you are in fact doing the work of the CIA by frightening off people from talking about their past experiences.Ah, I see. Thank you for finding it.
-
This week I shall be giving an in-class presentation on the difference between the United States policy towards Vietnam immediately before and immediately after JFK's assassination. This is one of the major tell tale factors of a conspiracy at the highest level.
I must use primary sources for this presentation. So far I have decided to use NSAM 263 and 273 in comparison and also the example of the mothe of John Judge, who worked at the Pentagon and was responsible for tabulating the number of troops that the use would need in a combact situation and what the projected casualties would be. A few days after JFK's assassination she was instructed to begin making casualty estimates for a war in Vietnam.
I am looking for other primary sources and general impressions from members as to what the most concrete evidence of JFKs decision to pull out of Vietnam is.
Thank you,
John Geraghty
John,
You're probably aware of the fact that NSAM#263 referred to the McNamara-Taylor report that recommended the withdrawal of 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963, and the complete withdrawal of ALL US "personnel" (carefully worded to include CIA thugs) by the end of 1965. So merely showing #263 without showing the report that gives the actual details of the withdrawal from Vietnam would be incomplete and confusing, i.e., I consider it a critical piece.
http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FRUSno167.html
Merely googling "McNamara-Taylor report" will yield all sorts of info (along with the ubiquetous McAdams hit). The M-T report may be on one of the links presented by others in this thread. I didn't look at all the URLs.
Also, documentation of the Gulf of Tonkin lie, from the resolution through the exposure of the lie, shows very starkly the lengths LBJ and his goons went to to justify the escalation. Again there's a ton of info on the web.
And IMO showing events in timeline format makes it obvious that the President's murder was related to Vietnam, and that LBJ was on the warpath for his war-profiteer cronies Brown & Root (who then got very rich and became Halliburton) and Bell Helicopter. For example:
Oct 11, 1963
President Kennedy issues National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263, ordering (by referencing a fact-finding report he commissioned--the McNamara Taylor report)the withdrawal of 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963, and the complete withdrawal of ALL US "personnel" (carefully worded to include CIA thugs) by the end of 1965.
Nov 22, 1963
President Kennedy is murdered
Nov 26, 1963
Lyndon Johnson issues NSAM #273 which reverses President Kennedy's orders from NSAM #263, and escalates the Vietnam War.
Aug 5, 1964
Lyndon Johnson lied about a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to justify dramatic escalation of the Vietnam War. (The "Gulf of Tonkin" incident was complete fiction, a total lie from a deceitful replacement "president" to justify all out War with the objective of increasing war profits for companies such as Brown & Root (who then got very rich) and Bell Helicopter (another Johnson backer).)
Hell, I'd think you could find primary source documentation to show how incredibly wealthy Brown & Root and Bell got as a direct result of their toady's war escalation, whereas before the war I believe they were having serious financial problems. Perhaps you could find documentation proving the fact that Brown & Root and Bell paid LBJ's way as he was murdering his way up the political ladder and into the white house.
This is just a little rudimentary input, but I do think a timeline format is very illuminating, because the context is so conspicuous as to make the truth unavoidable.
I'd also look into what you can find on McGeorge Bundy, IMO a prime architect of the Vietnam War, and almost certainly working at odds with President Kennedy. Here's a site with some war documents including "McGeorge Bundy Memo to President Johnson, February 7, 1965: Excerpts from Bundy's memo to Johnson, advocating "sustained reprisal against North Vietnam" in response to the NLF attack on two U.S. army installations." Bundy...
Hm, good website here: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/viet...Vietnam1971.htm
-
Host1 then goes on to name a specific American—in front of the entire gathering—with the named guest present (Guest5) who he has a particular issue with. He complains about Guest5 at great length......
I can’t help but think that hosts who sincerely want to remedy an incivility issue would handle problem guests discretely and considerately, by addressing them privately and/or initiating a new policing process wherein they could deal with the problem guests without a public pillory.
I assume that the guest in question is Ashton Gray. I personally did not see the post in which Ashton accused John Simkin of being CIA, but I have no doubt it happened, and that John's beef was legitimate, and deserved to be publicly addressed. ...
I don't believe that's the case. In the thread where John is discussing a person he says accused him of being a CIA agent
("John Simkin: CIA Agent?" @ http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...james+richards) he explicitly rules out Ashton Gray:
"I accept your point about researchers who disagree with your theories spreading rumours about you being CIA. I therefore would not be surprised if people I have clashed with me in the past like Tim Gratz, Tim Carroll, Ashton Gray, Wim Danbaar, Tom Purvis, etc. put it around that I was CIA. As a result of their past history, they would probably not be believed. However, the person who has been named does not fall into this category. We never clash and I virtually agree with everything he says. I also do not believe he is himself CIA. He is also extremely intelligent. Therefore, he has obviously been told a very convincing story by someone he trusts. Maybe he will be willing to post this story."
-
I certainly agree with Robert's comments listed above. I just want to make it clear that, in my mind at least, Myra did not exhibit the traits that Robert referred to. I'm hoping that he was not referring to her at all.
I specifically avoided mentioning names in order not to stir the pot any further. It was my hope that a mild general rebuke from me - someone who is neither an administrator nor a moderator here, and [hopefully] not known for raising my voice - would cause the guilty parties to reflect on their own behaviour and thus scale back on the unwarranted vitriol directed at the gentlemen who run this establishment.
When I invite people into my home, any topic is fair game for open - but respectful and polite - debate. But, if after having eaten the food and quaffed the beverages, one or more of my guests become abusive toward others, there is a good chance they will ruin the occasion. As a host, it becomes my responsibility to see to it that they mind their manners. If they cannot, then it becomes my awkward responsibility to usher them toward the door.
...
Good metaphor Robert. It's very useful to put things into that context. I can envision being one of many guests from various countries in the home of two co-hosts and sitting around having lively discussions and debates. It could be a social gathering or a meeting of political activists. Whatever; we’re guests.
I further imagine that a host suddenly makes an announcement to the chattering guests:
“I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some guests. The names of certain people are constantly being mentioned. In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.
Warnings do not seem to work. Therefore, I am considering banning the worst offenders from the forum. Do you agree? I await your advice on how to proceed.”
I’m stunned and sort of embarrassed as an American. I turn a little red and stare at my toes. I sense unease among some other Americans. But I try not to be thin-skinned so shake it off and promptly make supportive statements of the hosts:
“I've always appreciated Host1’s restraint in dealing with jerks. It's resulted, IMO, in a home where I feel that I can police my own behavior, aided by the many people I respect. I don't feel muzzled. I think the result is an environment where conversations can evolve into some unexpected and interesting ways. I feel like I can ask anything without fear of censor.”
I then offer my insights and suggestions on the issue Host1 asked us about, and complete remarks by saying:
“Thanks for asking for our input Host1.”
Other members are also giving thoughtful and polite input when Host2 chimes in:
“Host1’s original statement amounted to an appeal for an end to bad language and gratuitous insults. I agree with him incidentally that many of the Americans here appear particularly poor at expressing themselves effectively without recourse to either.”
Now I’m rather mortified at the finger pointing by both of my hosts towards their American guests. I feel humiliated and embarrassed on behalf of the American guests. I don’t expect to be talked to with such disrespect. And I know the hosts could have chosen to make a general announcement, without attacks on any one nationality, requested input, and put a process into place to remedy the problem without ever pointing fingers and hurting feelings. Instead they made the choice to point fingers. I feel strongly that the host’s statements are inflammatory and uncalled for. So I make the following rebuttal:
“Telling a large diverse group—in this case Americans--that their culture is abusive and that they’re unable to express themselves well is about as rude and mean-spirited as any remark could possibly be. And the very people spewing such statements are telling other people that they have behavior problems…?
Actually it’s way beyond ironic, though it’s certainly that. It’s downright hypocritical.
By contrast, and in spite of significant provocation, not one American here has made a comparable comment such as:
“Good god those Brits have an attitude even bigger than their heads!” or
"My goodness the English are masters at claiming the high road while taking the low road."
Not one…”
I expect that my point is made that guests deserve to be treated with respect by hosts, and I join in the resumed discussion about the stated problem. At that point Host2 again chimes in:
“Good Lord this is like being at school. Naughty pupils when pulled up immediately cast around trying to project blame onto someone else. GK Chesterton could perhaps teach you all a lesson or two about what is wrong here - "The problem with this country is me"
Just take the message please guests that if you continue to swear at each other and abuse each other your posts and perhaps even your membership will be deleted. This is a place for 'friendly discussions between teachers and educators' after all” he concludes while rolling his eyes.
So now we’re “naughty pupils trying to project blame onto someone else” and I feel sure that the statement, with the accompanying eye-roll, clearly communicates Host2’s contempt for some or all of his guests. I further feel—as I stated explicitly—that the Hosts are mistreating their guests, being disrespectful and rude. I don’t think good Hosts treat guests this way. I don’t think guests with self-respect tolerate it.
I imply, using a quaint American idiom, that the Hosts, who are demanding good behavior from their guests, are pots calling the kettle black.
I then do what many Americans do in awkward situations to make people more comfortable. I make jokes to lighten the mood (and which I’m certain are friggen hilarious ). Multiple guests join in the joking. We’re having fun, being all silly and playful, with the only victims of the humor being noses, and even then only certain noses.
Meanwhile Guest2 speaks up:
“I, although I realize the possible consequences, cannot live with myself if I do not express what follows.
For a number of hours, I have both bitten my tongue and taped my fingers in a "sincere effort to not respond" to what I feel to be Host2’s unhidden antagonism toward "Americans", which he expressed in his statement and has so done in the past.
I refer to the entire sentiment of his statement, and in particular to his statement that "....many of the Americans here appear particularly poor at expressing themselves effectively.."
Although I cannot call this truly "racist"....in my opinion, it could even be something much worse.
Host2...Am I at this moment "particularly poor at expressing" myself "effectively" ?
As it seems that your true "problem" seems more to be U.S. citizens rather than "guest misbehaviour",
I feel that the solution, which you might inwardly seek, has a most easy solution. Your inferences and rhetoric, seem more in agreement with the direct references to racial superiority, expressed by your Euro neighbors who frequently "dropped in on you" during the "forties".
Since I realize that I am one of those backward unfortunates, who has only recently emerged from the dregs of the swamplands of Florida, here in the New World, I hope that you wont find it necessary to find an interpreter for this post !”
And then Guest3 inquires:
“Host1:
Do you really believe that abusive behaviour is part of American culture?”
And yet another, Guest4, pipes up:
“I also find his apparent animosity towards us disconcerting but note that he said “many” and not “all” or even “most Americans.”
Meanwhile general chatter and joking continues. The tone of the gathering is, remarkably, convivial when Host1 replies to the question posed by Guest3, and says, in part:
“It is indeed true that a large percentage of members of this gathering are Americans. It is also true that the majority behave in an exemplary way. However, it is true that virtually every complaint I receive is about the behaviour of an American guest. I do think it is partly cultural.”
Host 1 gives an example of how aggressive, unpleasant, violent, and sentimental characters are in American movies and concludes:
“However, in gatherings, some Americans behave as if they are in the movies. Therefore, I assume there is something cultural in all this. That it is not a bad thing to be very aggressive. After all, in foreign affairs you seem to take a very similar approach.”
Host1 then goes on to name a specific American—in front of the entire gathering—with the named guest present (Guest5) who he has a particular issue with. He complains about Guest5 at great length.
At that point the gathering turns ugly, deteriorating into direct confrontations and causing much resentment. And so it remains, with a few scenic side trips thrown in, though this particular metaphorical gathering is definitely winding down. I, as a metaphorical guest, am personally astounded that our metaphorical hosts would repeatedly insult the nationality of many of their guests, and just as bad or worse, complain about certain guests—by name—in front of everybody.
I can’t help but think that hosts who sincerely want to remedy an incivility issue would handle problem guests discretely and considerately, by addressing them privately and/or initiating a new policing process wherein they could deal with the problem guests without a public pillory.
Just now a guest tried to calm the waters and offer perspective by making a metaphorical comparison of the gathering incident. And it’s a fine metaphor, most illuminating. I now clearly see that both guests and hosts must be respectful of others in order to have a successful, pleasant and productive gathering.
Real world reference posts: 1, 11, 22, 26, 28, 31, 33, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 67, 70>
-
Myra
I offer you a very sincere apology. It was not until I had read your post #236 and subsequent comments by such prideless stalwarts such as John, Robert Charles and Mike that I noticed that we were being referred to being linked as if we were two peas in a pod.
Though many of our thoughts seem to be in agreement, I would feel very bad if because of this, it was thought that you alone were supporting such a derelict as I.
I am quite sincere when I say "I am truly sorry." My own "self respect" would suffer were I not serious.
You know, it must be either a symptom or a result of my perceived mental unbalance, but what I hear these "stalwarts" exclaiming is a great amount of PRIDE in their attack and disclaimer of the human benefit brought about by pride and self respect.
Their "self pride in their rightousness" does not allow them to withdraw. It is they, not I, who have kept these flames burning. It is as if these "prideless persons" will not be satisfied until I sink with my ship. If my posts are re read, you will see several attempts that I have made to bail out.
Regardless, I am satisfied with myself except for the discomfort which I may have caused you. I also have a great deal of faith in my prior exclamations, and I do take pride in being exactly what I am and in the beliefs which I hold. I have defended them before !
Charlie Black
Charlie! No no please understand. I was saying that lumping two people together in such a specious context did a disservice to both people. I wouldn't have appreciated it no matter who the other person was. If I was willing to be assimilated into the Borg collective with anyone, you'd be a fine choice.
I share your faith in your prior exclamations, I understand your pride in being overt and genuine in your beliefs, and I am determined to remain up-front in my own communication--because I respect that from others.
As this thread reaches an end (as Mike so skilfully said
) I'd like you to know that I appreciate the self-respect you've demonstrated in this thread. I never came out and said so before merely because I didn't want it to seem like I was trying to encourage anyone to post statements in alignment with me.Respectfully,
Myra
-
I am relieved that this thread shows sign of reaching the end. There are no two members of this Forum that I respect more than Robert Charles-Dunne and John Simkin. However, I also have come to like and respect Myra Bronstein for her views and I feel she has not quite gotten a fair shake. Although Myra has demonstrated that she is more than capable of defending herself here, I feel obliged to offer a small measure of support. I'm going to endeavor to keep my comments brief.
The background to this dispute that spawned this thread had absolutely nothing to do with Myra. John, I thought many members gave you a vote of confidence, either explicitly or implicitly. I don't believe it was fair to lump Charles and Myra together; Their responses and reactions in this thread were quite different from each other's. Nothing about Myra's conduct would lead me to believe that she would target someone for attack, unless they attacked her first. In fact, I found most of Myra's comments fair and reasonable. That's just my opinion.
I certainly agree with Robert's comments listed above. I just want to make it clear that, in my mind at least, Myra did not exhibit the traits that Robert referred to. I'm hoping that he was not referring to her at all.
Thank you Mike. I appreciate your comments and assure you the respect is mutual.
Myra
-
And why is not Ted talking about his frame up?...because it was a good job and he has no guts nor valor for himself or his murdered brothers.
It is my opinion that Ted is not speaking out because of death threats against members of the Kennedy family. What do you think of the death of John Kennedy Jr? It's just pure evil against that family. I think Ted has done a great job for his constituents and the United States as Senator all these years.
Kathy
____________________________
"What do you think of the death of John Kennedy Jr? It's just pure evil against that family."
Hi Kathy. I agree with your premises. I would like to ask for any references, other than what has been provided on this thread so far, you can list regarding the JFK Jr. death in terms of links, articles, etc. I'm quite interested and I am sure others here would be, also.
Kudos to Myra. Most have forgotten the airplane crash in Western Massachusetts in 1964 - less than a year after the JFK assassination - in which Ted nearly was killed. The pilot and one of Kennedy's aides were killed.
Thank you.
JohnG
John,
I've been independently looking into the JFK, Jr. death for the past few years. There isn't much out there on the internet (and nothing in any of the establishment press). You can find the stuff that is there by googling Newshawk, John Quinn, John DiNardo and Anthony Hilder, and at least some of the articles they wrote at the time of his death and in the immediate aftermath should still be out there. BTW, I emailed a couple of the local reporters from a t.v. station in New England (sorry, don't have the call letters in front of me) last year, and one of them actually brought up the fact that he'd always suspected something was "wrong" with the official story of JFK, Jr's plane crash. I emailed him some followup questions, and when he never replied, tried again last month, but he seems to be ignoring me now. The other reporter, who anchored their coverage, sent me a long reply which totally supported the official story.
Thanks for that report Don. I consider it a certainty that JFK Jr's death was a murder. There's no Kennedy curse; there's just the fact that the fascists hate the Kennedys and know they couldn't beat any of them in a fair election. His death had all the telltale signs: early news reports being scrubbed and replaced with accounts blaming the victim and failing to follow up on earlier accounts, the failure to search for his missing plane sooner, the good weather conditions reported as bad, the good pilot reported as bad, the likelihood that he'd run for office and be unbeatable and the certainty that he'd investigate his father's death,...
Plus the context--father murdered, uncle murdered, uncle barely surviving one or two murder attempts... He was murdered. And Fortunate Son was missing during that time. Like murderous father like murderous son.
-
For your comparison.....
Stare of death...the slice ? head wound... and from the sides....
Is there a difference in how much the eyelids are closed.??
B
Bernice,
Weren't all these photos taken at Bethesda? I'm talking about the difference in his eye status between Parkland (where Dr Crenshaw said he closed the President's eyes) and Bethesda (where the "autopsy photos" show them to be open). I would expect photos taken during the same session to look the same.
-
Thanks, Ashton, for the mention of Darwin. I wish there was a venue here
to discuss the Darwinism cult. It is one of the greatest conspiracies ever
perpetrated. Any truly thinking person ought to be able to see through the
Theory of Mutation, as I prefer to call the absurd "science" presented in
our schools as truth when it is no more than a unfinished theory.
Sure some "evolution" happens...but according to Darwin and his cultists,
ALL LIFE THAT EXISTS HAPPENED BY CHANCE THROUGH MUTATION.
Absurd.
Jack
Jack,
Can you recommend a good source--website, book, whatever--debunking the "Darwinism cult"?
Thx.
Myra...highly respected JFK RESEARCHER MICHAEL GRIFFITH has written several great articles
on Darwinism. Click on...
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._Evolution.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g..._Evolution.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/g...riffithbio.html
These are good starters.
Or just google...DARWINISM CULT, DARWINISM CONSPIRACY, etc.
Jack
Thanks Jack. An open minded friend of mine has long alleged that he didn't believe in evolution, and it's led to some pretty lively debates. Maybe these links can explain it better than him. And offer an explanation of why such a hoax would be perpetrated.
-
Thanks, Ashton, for the mention of Darwin. I wish there was a venue here
to discuss the Darwinism cult. It is one of the greatest conspiracies ever
perpetrated. Any truly thinking person ought to be able to see through the
Theory of Mutation, as I prefer to call the absurd "science" presented in
our schools as truth when it is no more than a unfinished theory.
Sure some "evolution" happens...but according to Darwin and his cultists,
ALL LIFE THAT EXISTS HAPPENED BY CHANCE THROUGH MUTATION.
Absurd.
Jack
Jack,
Can you recommend a good source--website, book, whatever--debunking the "Darwinism cult"?
Thx.
-
In the decade that I've been posting to various JFK forums, I've witnessed much uncouth behaviour, flame wars over trifles, namecalling and puffy-chested posturing. There has been some of that in this forum as well, but it has usually been brief and over matters of some substance.
However, this thread has become a pathetic display of thin-skinned vituperation and ill-considered nationalistic arrogance.
If John Simkin maintains that virtually all complaints are about US Forum members, and are likewise nearly always initiated by other US Forum members, I have enough respect for his honesty to take that as a fact. Those who do not share that faith in John's honesty should perhaps relocate to other forums where their own excesses are more likely to be tolerated. If they choose to stay, perhaps they'd be courteous enough to keep their self-righteous comments to themselves. Speaking only for myself, I am sick to the eye teeth with complaints about our hosts who, in my view, have been nothing but courteous in their attempts to keep the level of bile to a minimum.
Moreover, those who appear to have taken the greatest ill-considered umbrage over our hosts' comments have nonetheless used this thread as an opportunity to display precisely the kind of arrogant sanctimony that first led to John Simkin's comments, in his bid to have Forum members police themselves. Given that this appeal from our host has demonstrably been ignored, we now have moderators to conduct that policing. That this has become necessary is a poor reflection on those who cannot resist a cheap shot at every turn.
Fifteen forum pages devoted to this topic is fourteen pages too many.
If we are all finished with our petty pissing and moaning over perceived slights against our respective nationalities, can we instead now resume devoting that vital energy to the topic that led us all here, the assassination of the 35th President of the United States?
If, instead, you insist upon continuing with your self-important bickering over comments which you have misconstrued as a slight against your nation, please go elsewhere. Your are contributing nothing but unpleasantness and, worse by far, you are an intolerably tedious bore.
Thank you Robert for your support. The most hurtful factor about this thread is that other members have been unwilling to state that they believe the administrators about the background to this dispute. It is like you are receiving a vote of no confidence. Maybe members fear that if they post they will be the next target for Charles and Myra. However, cowardice is no real defence.
Even more distressing is the number of page impressions this thread has received. For example, the excellent interview with Sterling Seagrave, started before this thread, has been looked at by only 274 people whereas this thread has received 4740 visitors.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9196
I once received a very disturbing email a little while ago. They told me that they were not members and had no interest in posting on the forum. Nor were they interested in education or political conspiracies. They only visited in order to see people having a go at each other. To them it was like watching “Big Brother” (a UK television reality show).
As for our American friends, you are welcome to say what you like about the British. I will not spend anytime at all defending us as a race, although I will intervene to defend individuals who are being unfairly criticised. Nationalism repulses me. Only religion has caused more wars than nationalism. I consider myself a citizen of the world. My only concern is to fight injustice, lies, oppression and inequality, from wherever it comes.
I have come out of moveon retirement due to public demand, i.e., public slurs demand public redress. Besides, Naomi Judd came out of retirement every other day for years and she's rich. I'm hoping there's some cause and effect.
Ok, so what we have here is an opportunity to analyze rhetorical tactics. To look at devices such as framing, subtext, meta messages, influencing and manipulating. As we’re often reminded there may be students here. So let’s be as logical and dispassionate as possible.
First we have this gem from paragraph 1:
“Thank you Robert for your support. The most hurtful factor about this thread is that other members have been unwilling to state that they believe the administrators about the background to this dispute. It is like you are receiving a vote of no confidence. Maybe members fear that if they post they will be the next target for Charles and Myra. However, cowardice is no real defence.”
So the subtext, from the moderator of the forum to the members he has the power to ban, is ‘Forum members are expected to get in line and on message say I’m right. Forum members who do not do so are cowards.’
Next there’s a textbook example of framing. (Some call it “spin.”) Charles and Myra are lumped together as if one organism, cut from the same cloth—Marles or Chyra, two peas in a pod--so that feelings about one will transfer to feelings about the other.
Furthermore, the implication is made that Chyra (the Borg) rampage around the forum like Godzilla in Legoland terrorizing members out of posting. Not only does that unfairly characterize quiet members as timid little mice, but it’s an out and out attempt at character assassination of two members who displeased the moderator by objecting to slurs directed at Americans.
This from the person who demands proper behavior from others.
Let’s move on (whoops, didn’t mean to remind everyone) to paragraph 2:
“Even more distressing is the number of page impressions this thread has received. For example, the excellent interview with Sterling Seagrave, started before this thread, has been looked at by only 274 people whereas this thread has received 4740 visitors. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9196”
Here members are being scolded for posting in the thread that the moderator started so that behavior could be discussed. Not only that but members were scolded in the first paragraph for not posting on his behalf; now they’re told in the second paragraph that they are posting too much. I guess the difference is whether or not the posts are in lock-step with the moderator.
Regarding the Seagrave interview, veni, vidi, visited. Now the stats reflect that one more person was there. I’m a team player.
Paragraph 3:
“I once received a very disturbing email a little while ago. They told me that they were not members and had no interest in posting on the forum. Nor were they interested in education or political conspiracies. They only visited in order to see people having a go at each other. To them it was like watching “Big Brother” (a UK television reality show).”
Interesting phrasing. He “once” upon a time received email “a little while ago.” But it’s vague and raises so many questions. Was it received once upon a time recently? Was it received during this thread? Was it before this thread?
The meta message is that this thread is to blame for a disturbing email. Did the email explicitly state that this thread was the Big Brother thread? If not then what was the point in mentioning it? Again, it’s to present a frame that this thread is coupled with mocking email and public ridicule.
We should see the email for ourselves—in keeping with the forum rule that “Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make.”
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...2243&st=105
Remember, there may be students here so we should back up comments with documentation.
Paragraph 4 (my personal favorite):
“As for our American friends, you are welcome to say what you like about the British. I will not spend anytime at all defending us as a race, although I will intervene to defend individuals who are being unfairly criticised. Nationalism repulses me. Only religion has caused more wars than nationalism. I consider myself a citizen of the world. My only concern is to fight injustice, lies, oppression and inequality, from wherever it comes.”
A thread that started out with a Brit demeaning and demonizing Americans is being framed as a thread victimizing Brits. Again, there may be students here so listen up. It takes chutzpah (class, that’s Yiddish for “big ol’ gnarly balls) to attribute one’s own tactics to one’s opponent. It’s a favorite device of the Bush regime, thus there are real life implications for Americans. It’s best to be mindful of this trick.
Now on to the most audacious statement in the entire smear:
“Nationalism repulses me.”
This took big ol’ gnarly chutzpah.
Let’s get in the way-back machine. We’ll set it for January 31, 2007…
Unnamed moderator> “I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum….In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive.”
Back to February 11, 2007…
Same unnamed moderator> “Nationalism repulses me.”
February 2, 2007:
Same unnamed moderator> “However, it is true that virtually every complaint I receive is about the behaviour of an American member. I do think it is partly cultural.…on forums, some Americans behave as if they are in the movies. Therefore, I assume there is something cultural in all this. That it is not a bad thing to be very aggressive. After all, in foreign affairs you seem to take a very similar approach.”
February 11, 2007…
Same unnamed moderator> “Nationalism repulses me. Only religion has caused more wars than nationalism. I consider myself a citizen of the world.”
Summation:
We can synthesize the subtext of the world citizen’s post in a few succinct words:
“If you don’t act as my mouthpiece Godzilla will squish you.”
Thank you for your attention. Next week we’ll analyze the Checkers Speech.
-
Myra, with all sincerity, I say you are like the soft summer breeze. Always refreshing.
It would be my guess that those who have you in their daily lives consider themselves to be most fortunate.
Well... this is most unexpected. Thank you Stan.
Just think, if I had really moved on then I wouldn't have been lurking in this thread and would have missed your great post.
And I say to you in all sincerity--you're a natty dresser.
Also, I appreciate your high-level perspective on the case we're all here to discuss. Who bought the bullets rather than who fired the bullets.
-
"The Society has been a veritable "who's who" of military, political, intellectual and social luminaries, and the best and brightest from this nation's universities—including William Casey, William Colby, Arthur Goldberg, Julia Child, Sterling Hayden, Ambassador Richard Helms, Paul Mellon, S. Dillon Ripley, and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., to name just a few."
Julia Child???!
-
Myra,
As I feel my way around this site I find myself counting on your posts to inform and stimulate. So thanks for your thoughts on this issue.
I was aware of the JFK/MacArthur encounters and of Kennedy's respect for the fading gerontocrat. But then again, the president was said to admire and perhaps even idealize "The Pear," "America's James Bond," aka William King Harvey, and I don't think that such positive executive evaluation is sufficient to remove Harvey from a valid short list of likely assassins.
Thank you Charles; I'm interested in your posts as well. And I'm very interested in this thread...
Regarding President Kennedy's respect for MacArthur, who I find contemptible in case that isn't obvious, I wonder if he was projecting. I think that's a pretty universal human trait, to assume other people are like us and expect from them what we expect from ourselves. So jerks may expect others to act like jerks. And visa versa. A principled honorable man like JFK may see people in the best light. He's often described as idealistic and I can see why. He was so fair minded that he brought republicans into his administration so that he'd get divergent viewpoints.
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0229520-00
"Kennedy chose his cabinet to represent the country's main sections and interests. To reassure business, a Republican, C. Douglas Dillon, was appointed secretary of the treasury, and another Republican, Robert S. McNamara, who had been president of the Ford Motor Company, was named secretary of defense. Dean Rusk, who had headed the Rockefeller Foundation, became the new secretary of state, and Adlai Stevenson was appointed ambassador to the United Nations. Robert Francis Kennedy, the president's brother, became attorney general."
Then there was McGeorge Bundy and later John McClone...
In assembling a diverse administration President Kennedy unknowingly surrounded himself with snakes and unwittingly isolated himself. As savvy as he was, and as much as he mistrusted the CIA, he clearly wasn't capable of comprehending the level of evil he was up against. Therefore he may well have been fooled or dazzled by MacArthur, who by most accounts was a skilled war technician.
And I can see where MacArthur would have had motives. Before he faded away he desperately wanted to be president. Much of his stint in Japan, to rebuild it after knocking it down, was all about polishing his image for his White House run which didn't get far. He may well have been resentful. He had a history of gross insubordination to Truman, ignoring direct orders and getting so far out of control in Korea and China that Truman canned him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macarthur (This jibes with what I've read at actual--you know--good sources.)
The insubordination that got him fired by Truman may have been a red flag indicating that was capable of committing violence against a president. As we’ve discussed, he was certainly capable of committing violence against uniformed soldiers in his own country's armed services. "General Omar Bradley later speculated that MacArthur's disappointment over his inability to wage war on China had "snapped his brilliant but brittle mind."" What you refer to as his dotage.
So here's this young brilliant Kennedy guy in the oval office MacArthur aspired to. Given the nasty piece of work MacArthur was, he may have had assassination in him. I won't rule it out. But I totally agree with you that he was not a prime mover. I see him as a hired gun. An old faded soldier of (mis)fortune.
Now, regarding Sy Hersh, he is to journalism what MacArthur was to peace. A soldier of disinformation for hire. A CIA mouthpiece. There has been a lot of discussion here on Hersh’s hatchet job on the Kennedys. For example: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...Hersh&st=15
But I wont waste a lot of words on him ‘cause this article says it all:
http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html
http://ctka.net/pr1197-jfk.html
It’s long but it’s a masterpiece. And it outs the orchestrated strategy that you pointed to:
the "he deserved to die" propaganda, and it fingers the propagandists who spew it.
"The Posthumous Assassination of JFK Part II
Sy Hersh and the Monroe/JFK Papers:
The History of a Thirty-Year Hoax"
By James DiEugenio
Highly recommended.
-
This Forum was created by John and Andy. In a sense, it is their home, into which they've invited us.
So perhaps a decent, thoughtful approach to our relations with our hosts would be to err on the side of courtesy and respect. You lose nothing - not face, not position, not national allegiance, not patriotic pride - and you possibly gain a continuing relationship which can add a great deal to your intellectual life.
If you take umbrage at perceived slights - and I underline perceived because, as an American, I was not in the slightest harmed by their words - maybe you could consider absorbing the blow and then, yes, moving on.
See! Now that's what I'm talkin' about. Uplifting. You're great Mark. Thank you. You've chided me in a couple of threads and you always do it in thoughtful and considerate way I can respect. The fact remains that just because you weren't offended doesn't mean it wasn't offensive, but hey--that's a niggling detail.
I'm all about movin' on. If there wasn't a moveon.org I'd start one! Besides, there are far more interesting threads here.
-
All societies have members which bring great credit upon their society, and those which attract disrepute. I suppose it's in the nature of being fallible humans.
How about we wipe the slate clean, and start afresh?
A sterling suggestion.
In the decade that I've been posting to various JFK forums, I've witnessed much uncouth behaviour, flame wars over trifles, namecalling and puffy-chested posturing. There has been some of that in this forum as well, but it has usually been brief and over matters of some substance.
However, this thread has become a pathetic display of thin-skinned vituperation and ill-considered nationalistic arrogance.
If John Simkin maintains that virtually all complaints are about US Forum members, and are likewise nearly always initiated by other US Forum members, I have enough respect for his honesty to take that as a fact. Those who do not share that faith in John's honesty should perhaps relocate to other forums where their own excesses are more likely to be tolerated. If they choose to stay, perhaps they'd be courteous enough to keep their self-righteous comments to themselves. Speaking only for myself, I am sick to the eye teeth with complaints about our hosts who, in my view, have been nothing but courteous in their attempts to keep the level of bile to a minimum.
Moreover, those who appear to have taken the greatest ill-considered umbrage over our hosts' comments have nonetheless used this thread as an opportunity to display precisely the kind of arrogant sanctimony that first led to John Simkin's comments, in his bid to have Forum members police themselves. Given that this appeal from our host has demonstrably been ignored, we now have moderators to conduct that policing. That this has become necessary is a poor reflection on those who cannot resist a cheap shot at every turn.
Fifteen forum pages devoted to this topic is fourteen pages too many.
If we are all finished with our petty pissing and moaning over perceived slights against our respective nationalities, can we instead now resume devoting that vital energy to the topic that led us all here, the assassination of the 35th President of the United States?
If, instead, you insist upon continuing with your self-important bickering over comments which you have misconstrued as a slight against your nation, please go elsewhere. Your are contributing nothing but unpleasantness and, worse by far, you are an intolerably tedious bore.
Duly noted. And disregarded. If you're bored with a thread then ignore it--Mister Mystery Guy from Canada. No one's forcing you to read this. You can instead opt to read any of the lively ongoing threads on "the topic that led us all here" instead of opting to kick this thread Northward by posting demands that the thread go Southward.
-
I've ordered many of his books at the library. Unfortunately most are inter-library loan, which means they may be impossible to get. I have his book of quotes waiting for me now at the library. Can't wait to see that.
Myra,
Pleasure deferred has a depressing tendency to be pleasure wasted. If you've got some spare cash, or merely run out of patience waiting for the library, try this link for about the best search engine for second-hand books I've found: http://www.bookfinder.com/
Last time I looked, there was a fair bit of Seldes available at very reasonable prices.
I also urge you to get hold of the Spivak pieces. They quickly disabuse the reader of any misguided notions about the recentness of the coalition which comprises the neo-Con lobby in the US: It was all pretty much in place in the mid-1930s. Spivak briefly revisited the case, I believe though don't know for sure, in his 1967 book, A Man In His Time (NY: Horizon Press).
I am mildly astonished that the CIApedia contains any trace of the man. I assume it's all some ghastly mistake, and the real entry is for Gilbert (as in Sullivan).
Paul
And then there's the school of thought that pleasure deferred is a bill paid.
But I know what you're saying, and I'm hot on the trail of Seldes. He won't fall between the cracks. Thanks for the bookfinder source; I was unaware of it.Whereas Spivak would have fallen between the cracks. Woah. Thanks for mentioning him; I'd hate to miss out on a source that good.
I totally agree with your astonishment over the CIApedia actually mentioning Seldes, and not even trashing him. I was drop-jawed in fact. I have every expectation that they'll McAdams it now that they're aware of that "thread to national security" from spying on this forum. (Does that make us CIA assetts?
) -
I don’t know how many times I need to reiterate that I never made any anti-American statements. I just made the observation that Americans are responsible for nearly 100% of all cases of people being reported to the moderator. (It also true that in virtually every case the person making the complaint is American).
...
Well that's not true. I've complained about John and Andy, non-Americans, numerous times on this thread.
What complaint have you made about me? I recall quite a lot of pointless bickering filling up precious forum inches but no specific complaint.
You utterly misunderstood my GK Chesterton reference but I rather hoped that with some quiet reflection on your part the penny might eventually drop.
I'll re-meditate then. Thanks for pointing that out.
On an online forum it is easy to infer offence from the comments of others, especially perhaps for those who have been stung in legitimate debate. However the vast majority of members have thankfully a great deal more good sense than to seek solace in such nonsense.It is distressing and frustrating to those of us who would like to see this forum develop as an educational resource that it so often descends into the petty squabbling and point scoring of the minority. It always centres around the JFK and conspiracy sections and hence the appointment of new moderators in those areas. Given the familar path of this thread today I can only wish those new moderators the best of British (and indeed American) luck
In this thread, post numbers: 22, 28, 199.
I complain very pointedly in those posts. I take the direct, public, overt route in my objections to behavior I feel is over the line. Thus it was right up front for all to see in those posts. Perhaps you didn't notice. I rather hoped that you'd read them and "with some quiet reflection on your part the penny might eventually drop."
However, if protocol dictates that I must send a PM to a mod to officially complain about the behavior then I'll jump through the hoops and do so. Anything to put a stop to that silly "100%" stat repeatedly being flung in the face of American forum members.
You know what they say about lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I'm looking forward the the new mods. Maybe they'll set a tone, by example, that's uplifting.
-
I'm most pleased to join this forum by sharing a point of information and an observation on the Butler/Roosevelt affair.
1. While Jules Archer's "The Plot to Seize the White House" remains the only book-length analysis of the coup attempt extant (albeit out of print), I'm told that Joseph Trento completed a volume on the same subject. Indeed, "The Last President," which he allegedly co-authored with William Corson, was coveted by Oliver Stone in 2000 as the basis for, as they say, a major motion picture.
Perhaps Mr. Trento will be moved to enlighten us on the status of the project. So too Mr. Stone.
2. I was morbidly gratified when I read in Dick Russell's extraordinary "The Man Who Knew Too Much" of how the author was tipped off to the probable involvement of Charles Willoughby and an unnamed American military hero in the Kennedy hit. The latter could only be the Old Fading Soldier himself.
For some time I had considered the possibility that Douglas MacArthur, having experienced first-hand the problematic nature of bloodless coups, subsequently made a "no more Mister Nice Guy" pledge to himself. So if he had been confronted in his retirment by serving flag officers bearing "evidence" of JFK's unsuitability for office, he would have given his blessing to executive action.
As a writer of fiction, I was intrigued by such a scenario -- one for which meaningful empirical evidence is all but absent. I bring it to the forum's attention only as an exercise in creative visualization. Sometimes -- not often -- intuition leads.
Charles Drago
General Smedley Butler named MacArthur in his statements about the coup attempt. And I wouldn't put anything past the Faded Soldier. My god, he attacked his own men, on American soil, when they merely assembled to demand the bonus they were promised. Killed some, injured many. General Faded was the lowest of the low.
However, President Kennedy reportedly met with him at least once, and supposedly was impressed with him. So he must have said something... human to so impress a decent President. Partly for that reason I don't suspect MacArthur in the President's murder right now. Of course that could change.
http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm
"...
During the days after the Bay of Pigs debacle, Kennedy was deeply suspicious of the intelligence community and of proposals for military escalation in general, including in places like South Vietnam. Kennedy sought to procure an outside, expert opinion on military matters. For this he turned to the former commander in chief of the Southwest Pacific Theatre during World War II, General Douglas MacArthur. Almost ten years ago, a reliable source shared with one of the authors an account of a meeting between Kennedy and MacArthur in which the veteran general warned the young president that there were elements inside the US government who emphatically did not share his patriotic motives, and who were seeking to destroy his administration from within. MacArthur's warned that the forces bent on destroying Kennedy were centered in the Wall Street financial community and its various tentacles in the intelligence community.
It is a matter of public record that Kennedy met with MacArthur in the latter part of April, 1961, after the Bay of Pigs. According to Kennedy aide Theodore Sorenson, MacArthur told Kennedy, "The chickens are coming home to roost, and you happen to have just moved into the chicken house." 10 At the same meeting, according to Sorenson, MacArthur "warned [Kennedy] against the committment of American foot soldiers on the Asian mainland, and the President never forgot this advice." 11 This point is grudgingly confirmed by Arthur M. Schlesinger, a Kennedy aide who had a vested interest in vilifying MacArthur, who wrote that "MacArthur expressed his old view that anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland [of Asia] should have his head examined." 12 MacArthur restated this advice during a second meeting with Kennedy when the General returned from his last trip to the Far East in July, 1961.
Kennedy valued MacArthur's professional military opinion highly, and used it to keep at arms length those advisers who were arguing for escalation in Laos, Vietnam, and elsewhere. He repeatedly invited those who proposed to send land forces to Asia to convince MacArthur that this would as good idea. If they could convince MacArthur, then he, Kennedy, might also go along...."
) I'd like you to know that I appreciate the self-respect you've demonstrated in this thread. I never came out and said so before merely because I didn't want it to seem like I was trying to encourage anyone to post statements in alignment with me.
The hit on Society.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I'm so glad you brought this up John. There is a huge gap in my knowledge of President Kennedy when it comes to his civil rights efforts and beliefs. In fact his famous civil rights speech is not famous to me. I'll google around for info.
I know he was initially conservative and cautious about it. For example he called Dick Gregory and asked him not to march with Dr King on one occasion. (Per Dick Gregory in Code Name Zorro: The Murder of Martin Luther King Jr., aka Murder in Memphis, co-authored with Mark Lane).
Here's what I want to understand. Is there evidence that President Kennedy planned to advance civil rights/human rights after he was safely reelected? Sounds like the speech indicates he was(?)
The real thing I want to know is this:
Did Lyndon (ugh, hate to even say that name) basically take President Kennedy's civil rights plans and implement them?