Myra Bronstein

Ah, that helps to know that the book has a wider scope than just the dual Oswald angle. Thanks for the summary.

Dear Myra Bronstein, I interviewed Mr. Richards with respect to confirming the Homestead Air Force base speech of Robert F. Kennedy, whether or not Mr. Richards knew about it. You are absolutely incorrect in your suggestion that Mr. Richards was involved in President Kennedy's murder. In this highly volatile field, it is not a wise idea to draw "inferences." For one thing, they damage your credibility as a reader. Joan Mellen Ms Mellon, Drawing inferences is an unavoidable part of daily life for everyone. The fact that I made a point of clarifying your misleading language indicates that I am cautious about drawing conclusions, and request more information when unsure. The problem was in the implication you made when you lumped James Richards in with soldiers of fortune, and then included a vague unexplained reference to him as a "mercenary." That word has a negative connotation anyway, and particularly in the context in which you presented it. Since you are a professional writer, and even a teacher, you should be clear when you write so that you don't imply nefarious things about benign individuals. If it's not implied by the writer it wont be inferred by the reader. Whereas I'm not a professional reader, and whereas you are a professional writer, your credibility is at risk when you are unable to express yourself clearly. And since you raised the issue of credibility, I'll mention that I would hate to see you further damage your own through muddled prose such as that in your speech. Given the lack of confidence so many have your book's sources (e.g., Murgado and Hemming) and depictions (e.g., Sheridan), and given the scathing reviews criticizing its clumsy writing style and describing you as an "eager conduit for disinformation" (DiEugenio), your credibility is something to be rebuilt, not further eroded. http://www.ctka.net/mellen_review.html Myra, if I may say so, your post is symbolic of a larger problem. While we should welcome Ms. Mellen's input, as she has done a mountain of research on the case, you picked up on a snide comment she made, and returned it in kind, questioning her credibility. Published writers and researchers have better things to do than justify themselves to relative newbies. For many, writing a book is like giving birth. No one wants to hear about how ugly their baby is, or how their baby would be a lot cuter if it didn't have such a big nose, etc. We should be respectful to those who can teach us something, even if we disagree with some of their conclusions. IMHO. Of course you may say so Pat. I welcome civil input from about anyone. I don't welcome uncivil input of the type displayed by Ms Mellen, and the fact that she's a published author doesn't give her license to cop a huge attitude. Furthermore the traits she exhibited in her speech and most recent post mirror the traits that have lessened her effectiveness as an author. By the way, what is the logic behind your reference of me as a "relative" newbie? Does that mean she does have to justify herself to wily veterans? And your comparison of a baby with a book doesn't work. Babies aren't expected to be reviewed by second parties, and no one is looking for reviews to guide them on whether or not to purchase a certain baby. Whereas authors must expect to have their books reviewed, and many people look to the reviewer for guidance on whether or not to bother with a book.

Dear Myra Bronstein, I interviewed Mr. Richards with respect to confirming the Homestead Air Force base speech of Robert F. Kennedy, whether or not Mr. Richards knew about it. You are absolutely incorrect in your suggestion that Mr. Richards was involved in President Kennedy's murder. In this highly volatile field, it is not a wise idea to draw "inferences." For one thing, they damage your credibility as a reader. Joan Mellen Ms Mellon, Drawing inferences is an unavoidable part of daily life for everyone. The fact that I made a point of clarifying your misleading language indicates that I am cautious about drawing conclusions, and request more information when unsure. The problem was in the implication you made when you lumped James Richards in with soldiers of fortune, and then included a vague unexplained reference to him as a "mercenary." That word has a negative connotation anyway, and particularly in the context in which you presented it. Since you are a professional writer, and even a teacher, you should be clear when you write so that you don't imply nefarious things about benign individuals. If it's not implied by the writer it wont be inferred by the reader. Whereas I'm not a professional reader, and whereas you are a professional writer, your credibility is at risk when you are unable to express yourself clearly. And since you raised the issue of credibility, I'll mention that I would hate to see you further damage your own through muddled prose such as that in your speech. Given the lack of confidence so many have your book's sources (e.g., Murgado and Hemming) and depictions (e.g., Sheridan), and given the scathing reviews criticizing its clumsy writing style and describing you as an "eager conduit for disinformation" (DiEugenio), your credibility is something to be rebuilt, not further eroded. http://www.ctka.net/mellen_review.html

That's the best idea I've every heard Ron! Here's my entry: "Is that your nose or are you eating a banana?" Hang on a minute, girly man. I believe I already made that suggestion way back in post #2. (I like your entry, though) It's on the record. Read it and weep. Ron is already showered with adulation. (I think he's a serial glory hogger) Mark, This is exactly the kind of behavious and use of juvenile language that this whole thread is referring to. I should think that if the forum is to gain more respectability you should refrain from using this attack method and conduct yourself in a more civil manner. If not for the good of the forum, but out of respect for John Simkin, who invests money so that we can enjoy the privilege of membership. Respectfully, John Geraghty John, I'm hoping you're just joining the the fun and kidding along with us in this sub-thread, which is intentionally silly and frisky. If not, please take the time to read back over the sub-thread I think you'd see that a few members are sharing a laugh. The respect you show for the forum in your comments is laudable. Now if you could couple that with a sense of humor and awareness of context, we'd make even more progress on improving communication in the forum. Respectfully, Myra

While Jack is being mentioned, may I highlight the fact that I do NOT mention Jack's worth as a JFK researcher; I do not have the background to assess his work in that area and thus I confine myself to his 'Apollo Hoax' claims (with the odd foray into the 9/11 world). That is where I am knowledgeable, and that is where I restrict my debate with him to. Understood. I was just using Jack as a general example.

FWIW I consider Ultimate Sacrifice to be totally consistent with the regime's current cover story "the mob dunnit." I see huge logic flaws in it, e.g., why would the mob want to kill President Kennedy mere days before he was supposedly planning to overthrow Castro, when their reported goal was overthrow of Castro and reclaiming their casinos? And such questions repeatedly posed to Lamar Waldron have gone unanswered for months on this forum. I think the conclusions that Larry Hancock drew from the same historical documents, and reported in Somebody Would Have Talked, are more logical. And he's able and willing to support his conclusions in communications. Myra

Ms Mellen, Would you please expand on this statement from your speech? "I moved on to soldiers of fortune like Ed Kolby, whose name appears in Lee Oswald's address book; Mr. Borja; and a mercenary living among Cuban exiles in Australia named James Richards. Richards told me that a group of Cubans who feared they might be implicated in the assassination had migrated to Australia. Richards added that Bernardo de Torres admitted to him that he had been in Dallas on the day of the assassination." Am I correct in inferring that James Richards was somehow involved in President Kennedy's murder? Thank you.

But history was kind to him, as he said, because he wrote it. Agreed on his character flaws. What do you all think of Prouty's claim that Stalin claimed that Churchill killed FDR? http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html

Hugely important Bill. Lyndon Johnson and his partner in crime Hoover seem to agree with you, given the fact that they were discussing it hours after the President's murder: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...er_11-23-63.htm "Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover reported to the new President Johnson on the state of the investigation. Noting that the evidence against [Oswald] is "not very very strong", Hoover reported on the tracing of the rifle to an alias of Oswald and other details implicating him in the shooting. But when LBJ then asked "Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September," an event of no little interest to the inner circles of government, Hoover replied "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there." In other words, an imposter had implicated Oswald in a relationship with Soviet agents, less than two months before the assassination. The quotes given above are taken from a transcript of the conversation made contemporaneously in 1963. The tape itself appears to have been erased at some time since then. The accompanying audio consists of 14 minutes of noisy silence. See "The Fourteen Minute Gap" essay for more information." And Duran was imprisoned by the CIA until she changed her story or something, right? I'm not at all familiar with the Eusebio Azcue episode however. Guess I'll have to research that one. Thanks. One thing that confuses me is that it seems like the real LHO did go to Mexico at some point. Yet the one who appeared at the embassy (Cuban? Soviet? I read a lot of contradictions about the nationality of the embassy he visited) was, as you said, an impostor. So... when/why did the real Oswald go to Mexico? He didn't ever actually go to Cuba did he? That would be the reason to visit the Cuban embassy in Mexico. On edit: Ok, good summary of the embassy episodes at http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...sue/lho.mc.html " Oswald returned to the Cuban Consulate between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., which was after normal working hours.... At this point, Ms. Tirado informed Consul Eusebio Azcue of the situation. Azcue had been in his private office which he shared with the man who would soon replace him, Alfredo Mirabal Diaz. Azcue politely explained the requisites for an intransit visa to Oswald. When he realized that Oswald was a stubborn man he told Oswald that he was obviously not a friend of the Cuban revolution because he would otherwise understand that Cuba had to be extremely careful with the people it allowed in the country. Azcue and Oswald yelled at each other. Then Azcue went to the door, opened it and asked Oswald to leave. Oswald did not revisit or telephone the Consulate. Ms. Tirado described the man identifying himself as Lee Harvey Oswald as approximately five feet six, with sparse blond hair, weighing about 125 pounds.[14] The real Oswald had brown hair and was not a member of the Communist party and thus had no Communist Party membership card. In 1979 Ms. Duran spent several hours with Anthony Summers viewing footage of the real Lee Harvey Oswald. She concluded that the real Oswald was "not like the man I saw here in Mexico City."[15] ... Eusebio Azcue, who argued with Oswald, claimed that Oswald "was not the same individual who had visited the Cuban Consulate in 1963." He described the man as "a white male, between 5'6" and 5'7", over 30 years of age, very thin long face, with straight eyebrows and a cold look in his eyes. He also said the man had blond hair.[17] Azcue alleged that he would never have identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man who visited the Cuban Consulate in 1963."[18] So two out of three of the Cuban Consulate personnel claim that the man who visited the embassy was not Oswald. The one man who says it was only got a few fleeting glimpses of him. After the assassination, the CIA Mexico City Station requested the Mexican government to arrest Sylvia Duran.[19] They did and released her on November 24. On November 27 they arrested her again. The next day the CIA Headquarters sent a cable to the Mexico City Station ordering them "to insure that neither Sylvia Duran nor the Cubans would have any basis for believing that the Americans were behind her rearrest." The cable stated, "We want the Mexican authorities to take responsibility for the whole affair."[20]"

Thanks Kathy. But the fact is I'm simply not interested in any dual LHO angle, aside from the ad hoc Lee-framing impersonations (at car dealerships and shooting ranges and...embassies) I've already mentioned. My stance was given in another thread where the subject of the alleged Oswald twins came up: "I agree about the dual Oswald premise. I consider it pretty absurd, one of the few places I draw the credibility line. Furthermore, I don't care if it's true because it doesn't change the bigger truth. A great president was murdered by and for war profiteers in the CIA; patsies and back up patsies were in place. I'm after bigger fish than the patsies." The dual LHO thing is more granularity that I need even if it's true.

Duane, for what it's worth, I think oftentimes the people who are shining a light where the fascists would rather it remain dark are the very people who are harassed, in the apparent hopes of intimidating and wearing them down. For example, it's precisely because Jack has furthered JFK research that he's targeted by some. They pile on when they sense a threat to the party line.

That's the best idea I've every heard Ron! Here's my entry: "Is that your nose or are you eating a banana?" Hang on a minute, girly man. I believe I already made that suggestion way back in post #2. (I like your entry, though) It's on the record. Read it and weep. Ron is already showered with adulation. (I think he's a serial glory hogger) That's "Ms Girly Man" to you... banana nose. Though I did look back at post #2 and the record supports your assertion that you are due some glory, and perhaps compensation for pain and suffering. I now foresee a thread discussing how to handle the rash of plagiarism on the ed forum.

Not to be a ditto-head, much, but "ditto." Jim Garrison did more than any one person could reasonably be expected to do under the circumstances. And he's one of the few admirable people to come out of this hideous, ongoing, chapter of history.

Is this a serious question? The CIA killed President Kennedy. The CIA killed President Kennedy because they hated his humane foreign policy. The CIA takes over foreign policy after they kill the President. The CIA is shown to violate international law as part of their standard operating procedure. The CIA is lawless and utterly concerned with human rights including the right not to be tortured, and even the right to live. What do current and past CIA crimes have to do with the CIA murder of the US President? Not many degrees of separation here. If one is inclined to see links. Leaving aside whether or not all you claim are true, by the same logic any story involving the CIA would have a place here? The connection is tenuous at best. Well then your question was asked and answered and this thread can enter the category of "take it or leave it." Read only the threads you're interested in. There's a great quote in the uncivil civility discussion on member "behaviour" that will be my guiding light here...

Garrrrry... How are we supposed to maintain the petulant tone of this thread if you keep interjecting sound practical wisdom and philosophy??? Puh-leeze, get with the program. (Seriously, that is a great quote. I can't find an author for it via google though.)

That's the best idea I've every heard Ron! Here's my entry: "Is that your nose or are you eating a banana?" Myra, as a person with an especially large nose, I take offense at that suggestion. How would you like it if I addressed obnoxious posters as "girly-men"? Nose-ism is no better than sexism. Jack Jack, If you have a body part you're particularly proud of I'd be happy to incorporate it into a stock insult. (I'm trying to avoid gender specificity in the insult however. I prefer a one-size-fits-all smackdown. Then I can eventually automate it. ) Myra

That's the best idea I've every heard Ron! Here's my entry: "Is that your nose or are you eating a banana?"

Is this a serious question? The CIA killed President Kennedy. The CIA killed President Kennedy because they hated his humane foreign policy. The CIA takes over foreign policy after they kill the President. The CIA is shown to violate international law as part of their standard operating procedure. The CIA is lawless and utterly concerned with human rights including the right not to be tortured, and even the right to live. What do current and past CIA crimes have to do with the CIA murder of the US President? Not many degrees of separation here. If one is inclined to see links.

It's kind of interesting, I'm reading Anthony Summers', "Conspiracy." In it, he says that all of the job applications filled out in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 by a person claiming to be Lee Oswald listed his height as 5'9" tall. Oswald's Marine records listed him as 5'11" tall. I just read Oswald's autopsy report in the DPD Archives. LHO's height was given as 5'9". DPD Archives Box 2 Folder# 5, Item#'s 2 and 3. Interesting. Steve Thomas Hi Steve, The quote you attributed to me isn't mine. I think Wim said it. Regardless, I agree with the quote. And I also agree that there were many LHO impostors running around filling out job applications, trying to buy cars, going to Mexico... and so on. I just don't believe in the premise that there was a second LHO for the duration of the first LHO's life. Instead I think the CIA sent some random hacks to use the real LHO's name at significant times in the months prior to their murder of the President, to set him up as the patsy. For example, to take target practice. Myra

Not speaking for Wim of course, but he's already addressed that in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9242 ""Harvey and Lee" may have some good points, Lee was certainly impersonated by others to nail him as the patsy, but the core thesis that the Lee Harvey Oswald "defecting" to Russia, was another person than the one shot by Jack Ruby, is preposterous. In fact it can be easily disproven, with a voice tape of Lee in Russia that surfaced in recent years. It's the same voice that exclaimed "I'm just a patsy!""

Of course he's not obligated. But it's pretty hard to read Mellen's speech and not ask James WTF she's talking about. Besides James can look out for himself. I don't think he needs our protection if a question comes up on the forum. After all, he's a "mercenary." The question could also be directed towards Ms. Mellen. Perhaps she could elaborate on her assertion...

Whereas the stories of US abuses can no longer shock me very much, Canadian abuses do shock me. Guess I'm naive about Canada. Damn Robert, you sure hit the nail on the head with the Kafka comparisons. And of course Kafka hit the nail on the head when he showed how those denied basic human rights are treated like insects, devoid of dignity and individuality and control. I guess, in this metaphor, the gov't would be a big shoe. I also have to give you style points for referencing Kafka and Jon Stewart in the same post.

I think you mods should ban anyone who makes an obscene gesture at the screen and/or makes this sound "pfft." (I also think good personal hygiene should be enforced.)

Andy, Please ban John. John, Please ban Andy (and Adam too--just to be safe).

Oh, heh heh, it was meant to say "Andy." "ANDY." "A-N-D-Y." But since I tend to skip Andy's posts without reading them I apparently blocked out that name. Not a surprising misnomer from this source considering Americans reportedly can't express themselves well... In the heartwarming spirit of "friendly" schoolin', one may suggest that Wikipedia could perhaps teach some a lesson or two about what is wrong here, and at the same time educate some about American idioms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black