Myra Bronstein

Well, he sure helped kill the truth. Good view of Ashton's Court Records building.

Very true. Love and revere I might add. C'mon now Jack, group... handshake.

Good thread on DU--How crying has helped Bush to murder people before: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ddress=385x8713

Woo hoo! Group kiss! Gettin' there gettin' there, now... Doh! That's very true. I agree that the tactic of diversion was well utilized. I have a hard time remembering sources 'cause of the volume of reading, but I think it was Larry who wrote about a gun barrel coming out of the TSBD floor six window and speculated it was diversionary. The oft repeated "smoke and mirrors" applies. Agreed. Tho' some things merit analysis IMO 'cause they'll be referenced by the uninformed and gullible. For example people will throw the Zapruder film around and say something couldn't have occured 'cause the film doesn't show it. I think it's helpful to be able to quickly demonstrate why that film is suspect. Well I'm a big picture kinda person myself. Though I think any area of study by someone with sincere interest is of merit and there is enough mystery to go around. My particular interest is linking President Kennedy's murder with subsequent and current events and the emergence of the US as a fascist country. But if people hadn't discredited the official stories then we'd have nothing to build on to illustrate the bigger picture. My only problem with a focus on the details is the possibility of getting bogged down in nothing but them, which we do need to guard against. Oh, gotta take issue with that big guy. We fight then we make up! See? Group... whatever.

I have often wondered how that came about, as the seeds of Nixon's removal (the Watergate break in) occurred just weeks prior to his re-election. Perhaps it was due to Nixon's embracing of Red China and rejection of Taiwan? This deeply upset a lot of the far right wing folks. Hm, this is a viable theory. On one hand I'd think his reaching out to China (as President Kennedy reached out to Russia?) would rub the cold war profiteers the wrong way. On the other hand China is such a big market for predatory capitalists.... Hm, interesting.

There was? Woah. If you could point me to a source on that I'd appreciate it Ron. (Palamara?)

No, just want you to be logical and fair, and dismissing someone's words because they wrote a book is neither. But... ah prairie-xxxx I can't stay annoyed with you. You're articulate and entertaining and make boffo graphics and fake French like nobody. Come here mon chéri; group hug.

Hi Eugene, Vincent Palamara names the SS agents known to have been out drinking the night before in his online book "Survivor's Guilt," which is devoted entirely to the Secret Service and their role in the assassination: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html Clint Hill was one of the four agents known to have gone out that night. [Editorial aside: He's also known to have claimed he felt guilt over his inability to save President Kennedy. IMO his guilt was well-placed. He knew what he was doing the night before, and how it effected his work performance.] However, Larry Hancock, in "Someone Would Have Talked," 2nd edition, has this to say on page 386: "The evening before the assassination, the majority of the Secret service detail stayed out at a club until the early morning hours -- 2 to 3 AM and later. Although only a few members admitted to drinking alcohol, at a minimum, their effectiveness was reduced by the late hours and lack of sleep.... Although the drinking incident was investigated by the Secret Service, no disciplinary action was taken and the details (and people) invoved in the genesis of the incident are cloudy at best....Hill's comments suggest that more of the agents were actually drinking than is reflected in the internal Secret Service report on the incident." I think you make a really interesting observation that it's possible there was more than alcohol in the drinks. Very possible... Not at all outlandandish. (Seems too brief a period for good ol' mind control, but hey, all possible.) The secret service's abandonment of President Kennedy is one of the most disturbing aspects to me. Larry Hancock makes clear that the President knew about the threats on his life, but totally trusted his secret service to protect him.... Those "agents" are just disgusting. They went out drinking, got zero or little sleep, did not secure Dealey Plaza, just stood around watching him die, yet nobody was disciplined or fired. Bastards.

...He added that he intended to remove corruption from government.... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6250 John, Is that information from the Lincoln book "Kennedy and Johnson"?

This is what the Kennedy Library has to say about this alleged speech: "President Kennedy's supposed speech at Columbia University, November, 1963. Many references to this fictitious speech exist in assassination theorist material. Supposedly, the President was discussing changes in the Federal Reserve and the gold standard, and this topic was somehow linked to his assassination. Others also claim he said, "The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy American freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." But the simple fact is that President John F. Kennedy did not speak at Columbia University in November of 1963. Those who believe in the "fact" of President Kennedy having made such a speech, either at Columbia or some other place, will simply deny this denial. At best, they will say that because "all or most records" have been destroyed, we simply don't know the truth; at worst, they will claim that there is a conspiracy to keep this issue silent. If someone chooses to believe in the existence of this speech, he or she does so as a matter of faith, which is fine, as long as that person realizes that it is religion and not history in which he or she is dealing." http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...sity+Speech.htm Steve Thomas What a great quote. "Religion and not history." Thanks Steve.

Because he did!!!! Richard you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps there are those on the forum who will be interested in debating you. Is it necessary to start so many threads? Perhaps we could have one thread where those interested in the LN-CT debate can participate, endlessly debating the single-bullet theory, etc. Or perhaps you would be more confortable over at alt.assassination.jfk His posts do push the real discussions off the front page, possibly through design. Oh well, we're used to digging for info on this subject.

Why, Myra: I haven't taken any of your toys away from you. You and Ditto have everything you've had for the past 43 years. I've merely made my own observations about some parts of it that I consider garbage, and have said why. I haven't asked you or anyone to agree. You still have all the "testimony" and "experts" and "evidence" that you and the world have had available for 43 years. I wouldn't dream of taking even the tiniest scintilla or mote of it away from you. In fact, my lay advice is for you and Ditto to stick with it completely, ignore the films completely, and ignore every image and word I have posted in this forum. I think you'll both feel better generally. Ashton Well I'm not surprised that you shift the focus to generalities Ashton. When the discussion get's specific, i.e., the words of expert marksman Craig Roberts, you seem unable to deal with it in a logical and open-minded manner. Instead you dismiss the evidence, or dismiss the people presenting the evidence.

I've never heard about Shinley 'til now, but I (admitedly) briefly checkout out the link, and he comes off as a Garrison basher. That's one of the species that most arrouses my suspicion, so maybe I'm hypersensitive. Also, some of it could be true, but I gotta wonder why he's going after Jim Garrison so vigerously: Garrison Helps LBJ Pay Campaign Debt Garrison Lies about Banister's Files Garrison's Case Against Shaw Destroyed Garrison Accused of Perjury I also wonder why I don't see any positive info about Garrison to balance out the (rather niggling IMO) attacks. WTF? I think it is fair to say that Shinley does not hold Garrison's case in high regard. But he has helped many a researcher, without regard to whether or nor he agrees with them. And most important, I have absorbed and checked much of his material, and it all checks out. Most significant are his posts regarding material from the New Orleans newspaper archives, a treasure trove of contemporaneous information. I often get interesting leads from people with whom I disagree, and I would urge people interested in NO to check out Jerry Shinley's material, and take from it what they will. I'd be careful of red-flagging people. The research community is still somewhat conflicted about Garrison's case. Some support it completely, some support only parts of it, some think the conspiracy was elsewhere. I myself have been critical of parts of it, where I think it conflicts with other records. The objective in this case has always been to establish what is true and what isn't true. Just my 2 cents. Thanks Stephen. I'll keep that in mind. Don't want to miss out on a good resource.

Now Sincere Stan, this isn't a forum for the squeamish. If you have nausea problem with mere rhetoric, then that doesn't bode well for your ability to face the many bloody murders of the Bush Crime Family. Just to desensitize you, I've included some links dealing with a mere fraction of their crimes: http://www.thelawparty.org/kennedycloseupshot.jpg http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...ficial%26sa%3DN But since rhetoric seems to bother you more than reality, let's substitute a warm fuzzy soothing word for anything that might remotely offend your delicate sensibilities: In January 2003 a small volunteer team started methodically counting all non-combatants reported muffined in the invasion and military occupation of Iraq. Not even the most pessimistic of us predicted that nearly four years later we would still be adding the muffins and muffiny to our database on a daily basis. And: Unless they include someone blowing Jeb's muffin off and muffining his family, Godfather Bush should just spare us the hypocricy go back to muffining on people. All better? Yeah, but Clinton cries too - or at least pretends to. (I always get emotional too when I see him bite his widdle lip.) Clinton usually doesn't bite his lip to fight off tears, he does it because it's sexy. And it's no wonder it's wasted on you; you're not the target audience ...Ron. Myra, Do you mean Clinton is trying to seduce the entire female population and it is lost on those of us of a male persuasion? lol Hope you don't feel slighted Peter. President Clinton is attractive, but he's a traditional kinda guy. President Clinton is part that faction that believes in abortions, tree hugging, global warming ,homosexals ! Compare the the deaths in Irag, compared to those committed by the left wing killers through abortion! And while you are at it,go back and look at the coup in 1960 when JFK stoled the election from Richard Nixon! Wake up Myra,you are one of those sheeple!!!!!!!!! Ya know what Richard, people actually present evidence in a research forum. You know, links, documents, pictures, books. Show us some genuine evidence of your claims or continue to be ignored.

I've never heard about Shinley 'til now, but I (admitedly) briefly checkout out the link, and he comes off as a Garrison basher. That's one of the species that most arrouses my suspicion, so maybe I'm hypersensitive. Also, some of it could be true, but I gotta wonder why he's going after Jim Garrison so vigerously: Garrison Helps LBJ Pay Campaign Debt Garrison Lies about Banister's Files Garrison's Case Against Shaw Destroyed Garrison Accused of Perjury I also wonder why I don't see any positive info about Garrison to balance out the (rather niggling IMO) attacks. WTF? My opinion strictly! However, considering the effort that Mr. Shinley has placed in searching around amongst the "Garrison" crowd, I would assume that he just may have recognized the circles which it leads in, with no end. He certainly should have recognized the "smoke" of the Garrison trial, and that it served no purpose other than misdirection and discrediting honest efforts to get to the facts. Ok... well I consider Garrison bashing one of the biggest red flags. Often when people trash him it's 'cause they don't want to see the truth revealed. IMO and all.

Thank you Larry. It's just that Nixon's presence in Dallas on Nov 22 was so...convenient. And he was Kennedy's losing opponent, and Prescott's boy. I can see where you think bay of pigs meant "bay of pigs." I hope I'm paraphrasing you correctly. After all, it was a genuine scandal, crime, failure, and so on. And with many of the same folks involved in Watergate and Bay of Pigs, quite the hot potato. I'm still struggling with Watergate. It could seem like a setup to get rid of Nixon, or an attempt of Nixon's to get something on the CIA. I just don't know.

Well I don't think the theory every indicated that Rockefeller ever helped Nixon get elected Pat, just that he wanted the vacated VP slot and clearly the presidency from there. And sure, Wallace was a threat to Nixon's chances of election; he broke up the right wing loony vote. And he was dealt with just as Bobby Kennedy was. I don't understand what that has to do with the premise I posted either. Why would the power elite want to kill RFK and Wallace (tho' that only crippled him) to get Nixon in office while setting him up for removal? Huh?

Yeah, but Clinton cries too - or at least pretends to. (I always get emotional too when I see him bite his widdle lip.) Clinton usually doesn't bite his lip to fight off tears, he does it because it's sexy. And it's no wonder it's wasted on you; you're not the target audience ...Ron. Myra, Do you mean Clinton is trying to seduce the entire female population and it is lost on those of us of a male persuasion? lol Hope you don't feel slighted Peter. President Clinton is attractive, but he's a traditional kinda guy.

What he did say and seems the significance has been lost on most is, "Now everyone will know who I am!" [enter Ruby stage right as proxy for the plotters to make sure no one finds out who he really was. Exit stage left American Constitutional Democracy......] Right. That I recall; I think Mae Brussel listed it in Oswald's final words. It's a pretty significant quote. Thanks for the reminder Peter.

You and John both scampered to the forum with this interesting article: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5360&st=195 I recall reading that Liz Smith was a gov't mouthpiece who's mentor was the bizarre Walter Winchell. But I can't find the source right now, so take that with a grain of salt.

In consider the case of J.H. Hatfield, author of "Fortunate Son," to be similar to the incredibly sad Webb case. Tho' Hatfield appears to have been set up by Rove, then trashed in the media, then had his book withdrawn. They killed him whether they murdered him or not. (The odd thing is that Fortunate Son was so mild. It was almost kind to Dim Son.)

Thanks for waiting Ashton. What I saw at that link is the Zapruder film, which I don't trust at all because I'm convinced it's altered. See the current Zapruder thread for details. What's right before our eyes is, in my view, an altered film that is not credible evidence. You demand that someone see things with their own eyes to consider it valid (tho' few of us, if any, were in Dealey Plaza that day). Yet when someone has seen something with their own eyes, you dismiss it as you did Craig Roberts' input. What's left Ashton?

I certainly wouldn't want to lure anyone from it, and I respect anyone's independent assessment and analysis of supportable fact. I've yet to explore the County Records building, per se, but I've just completed a rather involved exercise that took some time of setting up views from every window in the County Courts building. Once I can export jpegs of the view from each window, I think I'm going to post it in a separate thread. Could be. But I sure hope that "sure bet on the kill shot" wasn't supposed to come from the "Badge Man" location. Either that, or I hope that my model has some pretty significant elevation problems that I can get corrected. Because here's the "Badge Man" view of the "sure bet on the kill shot" the way it looks to me in the model at the moment: I'm actually hoping someone can provide some photographic evidence that would demonstrate that that's not the way it is, which would help me find flaws in the model's elevations. That's all I can conceive it to be, because the locations of landmarks are according to the Dealey Plaza schematics in circulation. That's very interesting to hear. I thought they read like spy fiction. I much prefer a quote that Mr. Roberts has at the top his own web site, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." I found the passage Myra quoted to be 99 and 99 one hundredths pure theory without a single substantive fact in view, and mused that Mr. Roberts could do worse than to follow the advice on his web site. Then again, I don't have books to sell, so I may be biased. Mr Roberts is essentially an expert witness who is testifying as such. That kind of testimony is acceptable in a court of law, but is not acceptable to you Ashton? You seem quite dismissive of a viewpoint that doesn't agree with your own, while not stating a logical argument against it. I found Roberts' statements persuasive too, and was wondering how you would address them. If the best you can come up with is that he's just trying to peddle a book, then your logic would imply that the input of anyone who has written a book is worthless. Let's all make sure we never write a book folks, lest we be instantly discredited. Mighty fine pix Bernice, thank you.

Ah hah! So I'm not the only one who's had that problem. Most frustrating. Well I suppose we can just break up long answers into separate posts as a workaround.

"There's not much question that both the FBI and CIA are somewhere behind this cover-up. I hate to think what it is they are covering-up - or who they are covering for." That is an excellent quote. Thank you John.