Myra Bronstein

Hi Myra - feel free to use anything I have ever posted - it's normal for me to cite a reference. No plagiarism involved.

Thanks Lee. And thanks for the article.

Yes - I still have that article. Let me dig for it.

Hmm...I'm not finding the part about the 2nd floor. Wow. I just found it. Very peculiar. There appears to have been 2 different editions that day of the same paper - phew - good thing I had more than one copy. Thought I had made an error. This is rich, check it out. Changed from SECOND floor to FIFTH floor, and added a blurb on Oswald. To make it fit, they had to remove the 'Wire News' in the 'Eagle Highlights' section.

Thanks for the exercise Myra - I enjoyed that. BTW - I think I did a thread, or added to a thread someplace, in which I attempted to compile material which indicated the 5th floor, as opposed to the 6th. It still my impression that there may have been more than one shooting party in the TSBD, on different floors, and including the use of a decoy.

Ah, the TSBD, not Dal-Tex. Ok, then it's not what I thought.

It's just that I have a philosphy that the closer we can get to the first word on the street, the more truth it'll contain. Pre-scrubbed.

(For some reason that I simply cannot fathom, Babelfish can't translate that.)

Sacre Blue!

But, even if I'm a glutton for punishment, I sure would like to know where this admirably brazen gun-totin' assassin went. Up in a puff of smoke?

Alright listen up! I already explained about the delay from the fake SS guys. And you acknowledged it. Please don't make me repeat myself, and don't make me resort to actual quoting. That's work.

1) Given that it has been rather thoroughly established that this event took place well along into the modern era of smokeless gunpowder (there's a whole thread on this subject), and,

They're blowing smoke up our... they're blowing smoke!

As I've made clear, and will say again, I believe the only possible answer is that it was, in fact, a premeditated, carefully timed diversion.

Fascinatin' premise. Yer thinking outside the box there, or the plaza. I need to find a study photos and schematics.

And so the question remains and echoes and reverberates like gunshots on an autumn afternoon: why was the order issued immediately for all personnel in the County Courts building to evacuate that building and go directly into the vast vacant lot you see above, where there clearly was nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Was there such an order? Can you please site a source?

Yes, ma'am, I can, thanks to the always perspicacious Steve Thomas. Below is what he graciously posted in response to a question I had posed on that count. You can find his original message in context in the thread Order in the Courts! The Riddle of the Court Jesters.

Woah, I followed the links and did in fact find something so jaw-dropping, so utterly incredible, so beyond comprehension that I am now the almost speechless one:

While pithiness is next to sphinxliness, clarity tends to work gooder.

Asthon

Ashton Gray, the prophet of pithiness. Lordy lordy.

Anyway, your premise is intruiging. And Lee Bowers did say he saw something in the parking lot, like an explosion; he didn't call it gunfire. And he did die a prompt and sinister death.

I had this email from a fellow JFK researcher this morning that included the following passage. “This is where I have to tell you that a researcher of some repute told me just two days ago that you are CIA.”

The researcher of some repute should feel free to PM me. I would welcome it.

John, it sure would help if you could provide some sources. I'm not trying to sound snarky here. I'd like to look into some of this, but I don't know where your information comes from. I looked at the Spartacus site for President Kennedy and don't see what you're talking about with the oil industry for exampe. Do you have that info in a link under someone's name?

It would be a better and more informed discussion if you would cite sources for your statements.

I provided the sources when I made my original posting on this subject:

...

Yet you didn't link to the original posting, or give the name of the thread until someone asked for it.

I like David Talbot thought that Lamar Waldron has misinterpreted the evidence. I would even go as far to say that he might be a victim of a CIA disinformation campaign.

I would go so far as to say that the authors might be mockingbirds. Just speculation on my part, but they're certainly promoting the CIA party line with their mob dunnit scenario.

I do not think it is helpful to describe fellow researchers as "disinformation agents" because you disagree with their theories. I have met Lamar and liked him a lot. He has spent 17 years on the research and made many personal sacrifices to produce "Ultimate Sacrifice". As long-time members will no, I believe the "mob did it" theory was put out by the CIA in 1967. However, I have no reason to doubt that Lamar is completely genuine in his own theories of what happened.

I do not think it is helpful, John, to use quotation marks to attribute a phrase I never used to me. I used a phrase that means the same thing, but quotation marks mean something specific, and you misused them. They mean that you are repeating an exact passage in someones' own words. Those are not my words.

We can certainly discuss what I did say, but not as long as you're making up "quotes" and attributing them to me.

One doesn't govern with the elected representatives that you wish you had in Congress; but must govern with those who have been elected. [With apologies to Donald Rumsfeld for the paraphrasing.] Were the Kennedys to refrain from dealing with racist politicians, they'd have garnered support from a handful of elected representatives in each party, and no legislation would have been passed.

Let us remember accurately the political topography of 1963 and just who populated the corridors of power at the time. "Ultimate Sacrifice" doesn't seem to do so; let us not make the same mistake.

Of course, it is necessary to do deals in order to get elected. The point is, how far do you go? You also have to consider the consequences if you have no intention of keeping these promises. For example, JFK had meetings with Richard Bissell and Allen Dulles before he was elected. JFK promised to take a hard-line on Cuba. In fact, during the presidential election, he attacked the Eisenhower and Nixon for being soft on communism in regards to Cuba. In return, JFK was told about the plans to arrange for anti-Castro exiles to invade Cuba. I suspect he was also told about the plans to assassinate Castro just before the invasion. Even though the CIA have always denied this was part of the plan, it does not make much sense without combining the two actions.

JFK also did deals with the Texas oil industry, promising to leave their “oil depletion allowance” alone.

JFK also sent RFK down to the Deep South to promise no legislation on civil rights. Maybe, his father even made promises on his behalf to the Mafia.

The problem about making promises is that if you break them you will be punished, either by the electorate or by the pressure groups you have let down.

One also has to look at the record of the JFK administration. JFK did go along with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Nor did he make principled decisions about civil rights. As RFK explained, JFK sacked Harris Wofford, chairman of the Subcabinet Group on Civil Rights (1960-1962), because he was too passionate about the subject of civil rights legislation.

Most importantly, JFK and RFK put Martin Luther King under a lot of pressure to call of his civil rights demonstrations. The same tactic was used against the leaders of the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) who were causing bad publicity for the Democratic Party in the Deep South with their Freedom Rides. Thank goodness they took no notice of JFK. The truth is that the main reason black civil rights were achieved was because of the actions of people like Martin Luther King, James Farmer and Bayard Rustin and not because of the views of so-called liberal white politicians.

As the people of Iraq are currently finding out, you have to fight to get freedom and democracy. It is not something that you can have imposed on you.

John, it sure would help if you could provide some sources. I'm not trying to sound snarky here. I'd like to look into some of this, but I don't know where your information comes from. I looked at the Spartacus site for President Kennedy and don't see what you're talking about with the oil industry for exampe. Do you have that info in a link under someone's name?

It would be a better and more informed discussion if you would cite sources for your statements.

It is interesting to compare the Jack Ruby case with that of William Casey, who was likely to tell the HSCI what he knew about what he knew about the Iran-Contra conspiracy.

Casey was due to appear before the HSCI on 16th December. The day before, CIA physician, Dr. Arvel Tharp went to visit Casey in his office. According to Tharp, while he was being examined, Casey suffered a seizure. He was taken to Georgetown University Hospital and was not able to appear before the HSCI. Tharp told Casey he had a brain tumor and that he would have to endure an operation. Casey was not keen and asked if he could have radio therapy instead. However, Tharp was insistent that he needed surgery.

Casey entered the operating room on 18th December. The tumor was removed but during the operation, brain cells were damaged and Casey lost his ability to speak. As his biographer, Joseph E. Persico, points out (The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey): "one school of rumors ran, the CIA or the NSC or the White House had arranged to have a piece of the brain removed from the man who knew the secrets".

Robert Gates now became acting director of the CIA. He claimed that he was not involved in the Iran-Contra operation. As Lawrence E. Walsh pointed out in Iran-Contra: The Final Report (1993): "Gates consistently testified that he first heard on October 1, 1986, from the national intelligence officer who was closest to the Iran initiative, Charles E. Allen, that proceeds from the Iran arms sales may have been diverted to support the contras. Other evidence proves, however, that Gates received a report on the diversion during the summer of 1986 from DDI Richard Kerr. The issue was whether Independent Counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gates was deliberately not telling the truth when he later claimed not to have remembered any reference to the diversion before meeting with Allen in October."

This is astounding information John. Is there a book or other source you recommended for further research?

Thanks.

Just before the First World War two German scientists, James Franck and Gustav Hertz carried out experiments where they bombarded mercury atoms with electrons and traced the energy changes that resulted from the collisions. Their experiments helped to substantiate they theory put forward by Nils Bohr that an atom can absorb internal energy only in precise and definite amounts.

In 1921 two Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner, discovered nuclear isomers. Over the next few years they devoted their time to researching the application of radioactive methods to chemical problems.

In the 1930s they became interested in the research being carried out by Enrico Fermi and Emilio Segre at the University of Rome. This included experiments where elements such as uranium were bombarded with neutrons. By 1935 the two men had discovered slow neutrons, which have properties important to the operation of nuclear reactors.

Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner were now joined by Fritz Strassmann and discovered that uranium nuclei split when bombarded with neutrons. In 1938 Meitner, like other Jews in Nazi Germany, was dismissed from her university post. She moved to Sweden and later that year she wrote a paper on nuclear fission with her nephew, Otto Frisch, where they argued that by splitting the atom it was possible to use a few pounds of uranium to create the explosive and destructive power of many thousands of pounds of dynamite.

In January, 1939 a Physics Conference took place in Washington in the United States. A great deal of discussion concerned the possibility of producing an atomic bomb. Some scientists argued that the technical problems involved in producing such a bomb were too difficult to overcome, but the one thing they were agreed upon was that if such a weapon was developed, it would give the country that possessed it the power to blackmail the rest of the world. Several scientists at the conference took the view that it was vitally important that all information on atomic power should be readily available to all nations to stop this happening.

On 2nd August, 1939, three Jewish scientists who had fled to the United States from Europe, Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner, wrote a joint letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about the developments that had been taking place in nuclear physics. They warned Roosevelt that scientists in Germany were working on the possibility of using uranium to produce nuclear weapons.

Roosevelt responded by setting up a scientific advisory committee to investigate the matter. He also had talks with the British government about ways of sabotaging the German efforts to produce nuclear weapons.

In May, 1940, Germany invaded Denmark, the home of Niels Bohr, the world's leading expert on atomic research. It was feared that he would be forced to work for Nazi Germany. With the help of the British Secret Service he escaped to Sweden before being moving to the United States.

In 1942 the Manhattan Engineer Project was set up in the United States under the command of Brigadier General Leslie Groves. Scientists recruited to produce an atom bomb included Robert Oppenheimer (USA), David Bohm (USA), Leo Szilard (Hungary), Eugene Wigner (Hungary), Rudolf Peierls (Germany), Otto Frisch (Germany), Felix Bloch (Switzerland), Niels Bohr (Denmark), James Franck (Germany), James Chadwick (Britain), Emilio Segre (Italy), Enrico Fermi (Italy), Klaus Fuchs (Germany) and Edward Teller (Hungary).

Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt were deeply concerned about the possibility that Germany would produce the atom bomb before the allies. At a conference held in Quebec in August, 1943, it was decided to try and disrupt the German nuclear programme.

In February 1943, SOE saboteurs successfully planted a bomb in the Rjukan nitrates factory in Norway. As soon as it was rebuilt it was destroyed by 150 US bombers in November, 1943. Two months later the Norwegian resistance managed to sink a German boat carrying vital supplies for its nuclear programme.

Meanwhile the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were developing atom bombs using uranium and plutonium. The first three completed bombs were successfully tested at Alamogordo, New Mexico on 16th July, 1945.

By the time the atom bomb was ready to be used Germany had surrendered. Leo Szilard and James Franck circulated a petition among the scientists opposing the use of the bomb on moral grounds. However, the advice was ignored by Harry S. Truman, the USA's new president, and he decided to use the bomb on Japan.

On 6th August 1945, a B29 bomber dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima. It has been estimated that over the years around 200,000 people have died as a result of this bomb being dropped. Japan did not surrender immediately and a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki three days later. On 10th August the Japanese surrendered. The Second World War was over.

Yes, war crimes. The negotiations were orchestrated so that the Japanese could not surrender because they hadn't received assurance that their Emperor--their god--would be free from retribution. The war could have ended with Truman's assurance to the Japanese that their Emperor's could remain. It clearly wasn't a sticking point since that concession was made after the bombs were dropped anyway.

As the Japanese were twisting in the wind over the fabricated "unconditional surrender" issue, Truman dropped the first bomb on Hiroshima. He could have dropped it on an island or someplace where hundreds of thousands of civilians wouldn't be killed, as scientists urged him to do, but he refused. In addition, he lied to Americans in his radio announcement of the drop--calling Hiroshima a military target.

I believe he dropped the bombs when he did to prevent Stalin from entering the war with Japan, and thereby end up sharing the Asian spoils with Russia. He likely wanted to show Stalin what big guns the US had as well.

If the atomic bombing of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a war crime, then there's no such thing.

Myra, I think you're way off base when you state John is vehemently defending Lamar's book. He is not. I understand him to say he disagreed with Lamar's premise but found his book worthwhile. Most researchers would agree.

My take: people fall in love with their own discoveries. Lamar discovered evidence that AMWORLD was real and not a contingency, and built his theory around it. I saw a previously undiscussed entrance wound in an autopsy photo, and built a theory around it. Similarly, Gary Mack and Jack White discovered what might be a man in the Moorman photo and built their theories around it. It's just human nature. As a consequence I see no reason to suspect Lamar is a disinformationist. Not by a long shot. He is a member of this forum and a close associate of Larry Hancock's. The two have worked closely together for years and have shared more information than most researchers have seen. The blind men with the elephant analogy is apropos however in that Larry sees a rogue element of the CIA as more than just mob employees and Lamar is inclined to believe the hit was basically a mob operation.

Unfortunately, there are many on this forum that believe everything bad must derive from the CIA. The CIA is thus equated with the boogie-man. But who is the CIA? The CIA is made up of a combination of typists, file clerks, postal workers, interpreters, historians, press agents, etc. My best friend's mom--Suzy Homemaker for the last 40 years--worked as a CIA secretary circa the Bay of Pigs operation. (She claims she saw some memos indicating an operation was afoot but remembers no details.) The percentage of CIA employees knowledgeable of CIA ops involving political assassinations is incredibly small. As pointed out by Robert, some of these men were "cowboys," working without clear authorization. Senator Frank Church called the CIA of this period a "rogue elephant." If you research these "cowboys" as I call them, you'll see that there was a clique within the CIA including Barnes, Hunt, Phillips, Morales, Robertson, and (possibly) Joannides, that felt personally loyal to Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell (who were fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs), felt the anti-Castro Cubans were betrayed at the Bay of Pigs, and quite possibly had connections to organized crime as well. These men had a history of taking decisive and reckless actions, and of concocting bizarre propaganda campaigns. In short, they were perfectly capable of pulling off the assassination without alerting anyone above them. If they were involved it could lead higher, but on the other hand it could lead nowhere. If someone were to connect Barnes and Phillips to LBJ it would be prove quite interesting. As it is LBJ seems to have been closer to Helms, a much more cautious practitioner of black ops than Barnes, and someone much less likely to put himself at risk.

My point, I suppose, is that it's far from clear that the CIA as an organization called the shots, literally.

Well... the rogue typist theory is one I hadn't heard before.

I suppose we have a fundemental difference of opinion on the book, and on a major force behind at least two of the big four assassinations of the sixties. I'll just leave it at that.

It was suggested by those who sought to defend Ultimate Sacrifice.

So you said. And I tried to get specifics, like who said that?

Without specifics a statement like "It has been claimed that..." can inadvertantly be taken as a whispering campaign. The kind of tactic Alan Simpson used in the Clarence Hill confirmation hearings for the US supreme court:

"And now, I really am getting stuff over the transom about Professor Hill. I have got letters hanging out of my pockets. I have got faxes. I have got statements from her former law professors, statements from people that know her, statements from Tulsa, Oklahoma saying, watch out for this woman. But nobody has got the guts to say that because it gets all tangled up in this sexual harassment crap."

http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/english/fac.../Simpson_Thomas

Notice the total lack of specifics to disprove.

You say that others accuse David Talbot of being disingenuous and self-promoting in his review of Ultimate Sacrifice. You haven't supported that with any specifics.

I like David Talbot thought that Lamar Waldron has misinterpreted the evidence. I would even go as far to say that he might be a victim of a CIA disinformation campaign.

I would go so far as to say that the authors might be mockingbirds. Just speculation on my part, but they're certainly promoting the CIA party line with their mob dunnit scenario.

That said, I do not agree with those critics who have attacked Lamar because of his claims that JFK and RFK were behind the assassination plots against Castro. It is important to judge JFK and RFK on their record. Until the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK followed a fairly hard-line anti-communist policy. RFK even continued this after 1962. Even JFK seemed to be following two different paths (assassination and negotiation) in 1963.

And President Kennedy showed his greatness by evolving after the missile crisis. As I think you know his evolution from son-of-rich-man to President of the people was the reason he was murdered. It is important to credit him for the courage to oppose the war-profiteers as he became increasingly isolated in his opposition, while he is judged on his record. His record was clearly anti-cold war, anti-hot war, anti-covert war, and anti-CIA. He also showed wisdom in allowing contingency plans to be generated, which I think any good president would have to do.

RFK’s conviction that this hard-line policy was a complete failure did not really happen to 1967. Cynics believe that this only happened as a means of gaining the presidency in 1968.

Again, who are these unnamed cynics John?

Maybe this is a cultural thing and it's considered more polite to say "cynics believe" than "I believe." Is that the case?

It is politically naïve to believe that JFK and RFK were two shining white knights who were assassinated because of their “liberal” views on civil rights and foreign policy. Even RFK did not believe that the JFK government had been too liberal. In fact, he admits that they were only too willing to do deals with white racist politicians in the Deep South. For example, read “Robert Kennedy: In His Own Words: The Unpublished Recollections of the Kennedy Years” (1988).

You seem to have fallen victim to a logical fallacy. The fact that someone dislikes a book you vehemantly defend does not mean they're "naive." And let's stick to the subject of this thread, which is about the book and the soundness of the book's premise.

P.S. I do know how to spell "dissipate", just that the brain and fingers continue to have difficulty communicating at times, and the soul could care less.

Careful Thomas. When someone is intellectually bankrupt on a subject they will hunt for spelling errors in posts and crow about them. It's all they have

But my soul could care less too.

Entire editorial here:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1471.shtml

Excerpt below:

Beyond "Bobby": Exposing the continuing conspiracy and cover-up of the RFK assassination

By Larry Chin

Online Journal Associate Editor

Nov 27, 2006, 01:38

With the film Bobby, director-writer Emilio Estevez captures a snapshot of 1968 America, and the many hopes and dreams lifted and crushed on the night Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. But the real story that still begs to be told begins where Bobby leaves off: with the assassination itself.

For it is only through investigation of the assassination and its cover-up, the murder’s direct connection to the other 1960s assassinations (JFK, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X [who is the only one of the big four without a designatED forum: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8597], and others), and its relevance to subsequent (and also directly connected) wars and political crimes (Nixon/Watergate, Iran-Contra, and both Bush administrations) -- that the soul of the American Empire is truly revealed.

RFK case wide open

The RFK assassination was, like the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent figures, a political murder committed by operatives and agents of the US government (including, but limited to, the CIA and FBI), in conjunction with local police (operating as CIA cutouts), and intelligence-connected organized crime figures and mercenaries.

There is overwhelming evidence that the RFK murder was a CIA operation involving the Los Angeles Police Department.

More proof continues to emerge, including this fresh piece of evidence uncovered by BBC investigator Shane O’Sullivan. Conducting research for his own film on the RFK assassination, O’Sullivan has identified and corroborated the presence and identities of three former CIA operatives at the crime scene:

Michael Ruppert, former Los Angeles Police detective, author, journalist and editor of From The Wilderness, conducted his own investigation of the RFK assassination, tapping into inside contacts deep within the LAPD. His investigation definitively proves that the assassination was a CIA operation, and names some of the perpetrators:

Following the trail of evidence

If there is a call to action inspired by Bobby, it must not stop with a revival of the causes that purportedly died with RFK. It must begin with a furious worldwide call to break down the doors of the national security state, with the immediate reopening of real and legitimate investigations into not only the RFK assassination, but every other political murder and crime of the past 40 years. The CIA, the FBI and other agencies must be held accountable.

Nothing less will do.

The RFK assassination physical evidence was, predictably, destroyed, manipulated, and subjected to a massive and continuing cover-up shortly after the murder. Investigations have been meticulously sabotaged. Whistleblowers, eyewitnesses, investigators and researchers have been silenced and murdered. The Kennedys, physical evidence and 9/11

...

The conspiracy and cover-up of all the 1960s' assassinations must be understood not as isolated murders, but parts of a long and seamless continuum. To borrow the words of Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, authors of The Iran-Contra Connection, they are merely “the outgrowth of a long tradition of covert US activities."

Any sober examination of any of the assassinations leads directly to the same master list of agencies, political suspects and covert operatives, from the Kennedy killings to the crimes of Watergate and Iran-Contra, to the present day. The system that made the RFK murder and cover-up possible is at its zenith today, with the openly criminal, overtly brutal George W. Bush administration.

Anyone who has studied his history must have been disgusted and outraged by the official ceremony in which George W. Bush named the Justice Department building after RFK, given the fact that the Bush crime family and its network can be directly connected to the Kennedy killings.

...

Hopefully, the continuing efforts of researchers and investigators, and people like researcher/film maker Shane O'Sullivan will be a part of a new wave.

In short, there is an arduous and long-running battle for justice that must be joined. Let it start now.

Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal

Alors vous devrez lire mes lèvres.

Il n'y aura aucun nouvel impôt?

First I would have to be able to comprehend it. I failed. However! I did what I always do in such an emergency of comprehension: I improvised. In this case the improvosation took the form of dropping into the street a second limo (not a Cadillac, as it was in real life, though—sorry), two motorcycles, and two trailing cars, then swinging the virtual camera around inside the Dal-Tex building right to where the purported "shooter" (with or without the extra-baggage accomplice) is alleged to have been. And here is what I saw:

Would you take the shot?

Only if I was really pissed off at James Tague.

Dang you do mighty fine work though. Nice perspective.

The reason I've stopped quoting you here—and I'll beg your pardon for it—is gently to direct your attention to the rather nondescript edifice in the top portion of this image:

That is what is often referred to, I believe, as the "switching tower." It was manned that day. There is a witness who was there in it throughout the fell events of the noon hour. And after my having taken a virtual look from that location, I'm afraid that all your very well-formed and well-stated arguments fell on somewhat deaf ears (it might be the hat). But, please: you take a look for yourself at what could be viewed in a sweep from that tower, and tell me how likely it is, to you, that an organized group of professional killers would have selected the "behind the fence" area as a sniper's lair:

Uh, the knoll fence? Likely.

And so the question remains and echoes and reverberates like gunshots on an autumn afternoon: why was the order issued immediately for all personnel in the County Courts building to evacuate that building and go directly into the vast vacant lot you see above, where there clearly was nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.

Was there such an order? Can you please site a source?

Are you suggesting that the assassins were trying to flush out the witness to the assassination to nail them in the parking lot?

I found the thread recently with David Talbot's review of Ultimate Sacrifice, and he asked the same question I've had since I read the book:

"The biggest puzzler about the authors' Mafia theory is this: Why in the world would organized crime bosses, who had been scheming to return to Havana ever since Castro's revolutionary government had evicted them from their immensely lucrative casinos, knock off Kennedy just days before he was about to knock off Castro? Here again, "Ultimate Sacrifice" fails the basic logic test."

It has been claimed that David Talbot's poor review on Ultimate Sacifice is not unconnected to his own book on the assassinations of JFK and RFK that will appear next year.

So, anyone who writes about President Kennedy's assassination and give a bad review to another such book is being disingenuous and self-promoting? Or just Talbot? Who has "it been claimed" by John?

More on Ultimate Sacrifice from another ed thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5748

"And I wouldn't site "Ultimate Sacrifice" as a source on anything other than an example of the continuation of the theme that RFK had sanctioned his brother's murder (per Russo, et al), and all the schmeil about C-Day is a figment of their imagination - they admit making up the word C-Day, which never happened.

Their hypothetical coup never happened, while the real coups took place in Siagon and Dallas.

BK"

"I agree with Bill that it seems the authors of Ultimate Sacrifice bought into the same old Roselli-generated cover-up story about Bobby having caused his brother's death. I admit to personally considering Bobby's role to be paramount in any understanding of the anti-Castro dynamics in late 1963. However, I certainly do not believe that "Col. Roselli" of JM/WAVE was working from the same playbook as Bobby.

Trying to fathom Bobby's role is like the metaphor of blind men describing an elephant, one feeling the leg and thinking it's a tree, another feeling the tail and thinking it's a snake. He was running numerous compartmentalized Cuban special groups, deliberately keeping participants from knowing the entire scheme, if there was in fact any single overall scheme. The authors of Ultimate Sacrifice felt a certain part of the anatomy and came to their narrow conclusion.

Richard Reeves noted about the president, and by extension, his brother: "Kennedy was decisive, though he never made a decision until he had to, and then invariably he chose the most moderate of available options." The peace overtures were still in play at the time of JFK's death, despite what Harry Williams may have believed.

T.C."

A blind man describing an elephant. Beautiful.

5. In a recently published book, Ultimate Sacrifice, the authors argue that in 1963 JFK and the CIA were working with Juan Almeida Bosque and Che Guevara in a plot to overthrow Fidel Castro. Do you think this is possible? If so, why has Castro allowed Almeida to remain in office (according to the authors, Castro has known about the plot since the early 1990s)?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKalmeida.htm

No, I do not think it is possible that JFK and the CIA were working with Che and Juan Almeida against Castro. The authors must have been smoking something!

Well, I frankly have a lot of problems with the premise of the book. And with the claim that the CIA was duped.... Anyway, I've asked the same question twice with no reply. Here it is again:

I just read "Ultimate Sacrifice" and have a question for Mr. Waldron.

If the Kennedys were close to overthrowing Castro, why wouldn't the mafia wait until Castro was out of power to kill JFK? Wouldn't they want to get their casinos and property back after capitalism is, presumably, restored -- *before* assassinating their enemy?

Thank you.

Myra

Yes!

I found the thread recently with David Talbot's review of Ultimate Sacrifice, and he asked the same question I've had since I read the book:

"The biggest puzzler about the authors' Mafia theory is this: Why in the world would organized crime bosses, who had been scheming to return to Havana ever since Castro's revolutionary government had evicted them from their immensely lucrative casinos, knock off Kennedy just days before he was about to knock off Castro? Here again, "Ultimate Sacrifice" fails the basic logic test."

Thank you David, thank you.

Here's the thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5520

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2...view/index.html

Good review... I mean, not for the authors but for the greater good (i.e., what I believe).

This is my other problem with the book:

"While the authors take pains to (repeatedly) exonerate the CIA in the killing of Kennedy, their book actually winds up raising serious questions about the agency's possible role in the crime. Though it's not the authors' scenario, after finishing "Ultimate Sacrifice" the reader is left with the unmistakable impression that the assassination was probably the work of a conspiracy involving elements of the CIA, Mafia and anti-Kennedy Cuban exiles -- a cabal that was working to terminate Castro's reign (by any means necessary) and turned its guns instead against Kennedy."

Yeah, and the pains it goes to (repeatedly) to "exonerate the CIA" makes it seem like disinformation. The fact that it tries to prop up the flagging "mob dunnit" story makes it seem like official disinformation. I'm honestly puzzled by the defense of this book.

Good ol' Salon.

Huh? Anyways, do you see the two figures in the window? Let's establish that much.

See image above. Does it really matter? (But to answer your question: no.)

Hm, taking a tip from Don's (old?) sig line:

"Because of the photograph taken by AP photographer James Altgens seeming to show a rifle shaped object protruding from the second floor window of the Dal-Tex building, several Warren report critics (including myself) felt that was a probably a firing point for one or two shots. The committee has made available to me the original Altgens negative. Using my technique of vario-density eynexing, I was able to enhance the image in the window to the point of clarity where window is now identifiable as a black man leaning the window sill with both hands, and with no gun in view."

ROBERT GRODEN, his HSCA-documented comments about the panels report, 1979"

I went here to see the whole report:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca...denComments.pdf

Does anyone have a copy of the Groden photo of "a black man leaning [on] the window sill [of Dal-Tex floor 2 by fire escape on Nov 22, '63] with both hands, and with no gun in view"?

More from Groden's report:

ATTACHMENT 3: SUSPECTED FIRING POINTS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, AS THEY RELATE TO THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

There are nearly 2 dozen suspected firing points in Dealey Plaza that have been raised by Warren report critics through the years. Of these, several are worthy of close inspection for they may be candidates of probable sources of shots within the plaza. Some of the 2 dozen:

1. The TSBD easternmost sixth floor window facing south (the "Oswald" window).

2. The TSBD roof.

3. The TSBD seventh floor.

4. The TSBD fourth floor, third pair from the left (west) end.

5. The TSBD westernmost pair of sixth floor windows facing south.

6. The Dal-Tex building second floor.

7. The Dal-Tex building third floor.

8. The Dal-Tex building third floor. (any of the top three).

9. Dal-Tex roof.

10. The county records building roof.

11. The county records building second floor.

12. The stockade fence on top of the "grassy knoll".

13. The cement retaining wall in front of the stockade fence.

14. In front of the cement structure on the knoll at the end of the stockade fence (northeastern end).

15. The railroad overpass.

16. A storm drain at the north curb of Elm Street.

17. The "umbrella man".

18. The "south knoll" (the grassy knoll on the south side of the plaza on Commerce Street).

Nos. 1 thru 11 were to the President's rear, 12 thru 16 were to his right front, 17 stated at tile front and ended to the rear as the car passed by, and 18 was to the President's left front.

1. Was almost certainly a firing point. If the "Oswald" window was used during the assassination, whether by Lee Oswald or any one else, (this remains to be proven), it is logical to assume that there would be from this window. This would be consistent with a prearranged scenario as well with the official version of the crime. The film taken by Charles Bronson may show a dummy snipers nest for a cover story being constructed just 7 minutes before the shots were fired.

2. and 3. are possible alternatives to 1 but with far less opportunity for interruption by a bystander as was always a possibility at the "Oswald" window. There were reports of a rifle being found at 2 and 3 was not even searched.

4. Is considered by Dr. Cyril Wecht because of the angle of bullet trajectory from that point.

5. Is the point where witness Arnold Rowland saw two men with a rifle Just before the assassination but thought that they were Secret Service agents. There was also what appeared to be a bullet mark on the north sidewalk of Elm Street (since removed) that lined up with this window.

6. Because of of photograph taken by A.P. photographer, James Altgens seeming to show a rifle shaped object protruding from the second floor window of the Dal-Tex building, several Warren report critics (including myself) felt that was a propably a firing point for one or two shots. The committee has made available to me the original Altgens negative. Using my technique of vario-density eynexing, I was able to enhance the image in the window to the point of clarity where window is now identifiable as a black man leaning the window sill with both hands, and with no gun in view.

7. Has been charged as a firing point for the same reason as window 6. Using the VDC technique. I feel that the window was closed and I can find no evidence of any shots from that window.

8, 9. and 10. are strong interchangeable possibilities for one or two of the shots from the rear. Either President Kennedy's or Governor Connally's back wounds or the President's rear entering head wound. These angles are much closer to the alleged trajectory (rear to front) than the depository points 1 to 5.

11. Only one man Hugh McDonald has mentioned this as a firing point. Logistically, it simply could not I have been. The angles and line sight won't line up to any traceable shot.

12. The committee's acoustic panel has presented corroborative evidence to support the photographic evidence that this was in fact a firing point. A figure can be seen in both the second Moorman Polaroid photograph (clearly showing a figure in the area directly behind the stockade fence), 8 feet to the left of the corner of the fence), and the closing few dozen frames of the Zapruder film also seem to show a figure in the same spot. Independently, the sound tapes from the stuck transmitter place a firing point in this exact position, as do a great deal of eye and ear witnesses to the shooting.

13. Appears in a long list of films and photographs: (a) the fifth Phil Willis slide; ( the Hugh Betzner photo corresponding to Willis No. 5; © ,the Abraham Zapruder film frances in the area surrounding and including No. 413; (d) the Orville Nix film in shadow near the left edge of the retaining wall; and (e) the Marie Muchmore film for one frame at the extreme top of the frame.

14. After the shooting, a large crowd of spectators chased this man, who some thought was a gunman, back into the parking lot where he disappeared, and where a man with false Secret Service identification was encountered. In items a and c, a shape appearing to be a weapon or rifle-shaped object is noted being held by this man. The HSCA photo panel has determined that this is indeed a human shape.

Appears in the Orville Nix film for an entire sequence and can be seen in motion. Stereo pairs show this shape to have three dimensions, and to be in the plaza in front of the concretes structure with the "left arm" portion extending beyond the edge of the wall. There are similar patches of light and shadow visible on the wall in the next sequence that give the impression that this shape was only shadows. It was not. These remaining shadows lack the coloring and texture of the image itself.

15. There is no photographic evidence of an assassin at this point.

16. There is no photographic evidence of an assassin at this point.

17. It seems unlikely that a shot could have come from this point.

18. Two Dallas doctors noted an entrance wound in the President's left temple. I have also noted in autopsy photograph No. 29 and the front view X-ray that there seems to be such a bullet wound in evidence. If there was, then this probably came from the area of the southern grassy knoll. The only photographic evidence of a shot from this point is the Cancellare photograph. It shows a shape that appears to be a man holding what appears to be a rifle on top of the knoll near a tree just seconds after the shots were fired. However, this shape is far too vague to be considered proof of a gunman and must be considered with its limitations.

It is my opinion that Nos. 1, 9, 10, 12 13, and 18 are the most likely candidates for firing points as well as either 2, 3, 4, 5, or 8 (one of these).

It is also my opinion that only four of the above or at the most five are truly candidates for firing points and that No. 14 was a probability who never fired a shot. The rest on the list I cannot believe to be points where shots came from on the basis of photographic evidence as well as other physical evidence.

Ok, so Groden doesn't mention the Tower. That can be added in, then suspected firing points can be checked and some eliminated, and it'll be all figured out. It's just that easy.

Lee Forman

post Jan 6 2006, 12:20 AM

Post #4

Super Member

****

Group: JFK

Posts: 1449

Joined: 28-April 04

Member No.: 675

I continue to plagiarize, Lee again:

"Wichita Eagle - 11/23

"The charge was filed against Lee Harvey Oswald, 24. Officers said he was the man who hid on the 5th floor of a textbook warehouse..."

"The fatal shots came from the second floor..."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5783

Lee? Do you still have that article???

Bet you didn't know I had The Tower card up my sleeve, did you? (Did Myra fold?)

Hey!

I don't fold I bluff.

Ok, replying to myself, there is more discussion on the problematic angle from the second floor Dal-Tex bldg. in this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=5149&st=15.

This quote from GPH... FWIW:

"I also asked Oliver: That since the exterior shots of Stanley and the black kid would be filmed at a time when the dozen or so motorcade cycles weren't to be filmed -- could we please have both a scoped rifle & a "iron-sights" rifle [mounted with cameras] used during the next motorcade cycle. I told him that it would be quite interesting to see [as I suspected] that any 2nd floor DalTex window shooter would have had NO SHOT at JFK after the turn in front of the TSBD.

When he inquired as to my theory, I responded that: With the "J/Canoe" now going downhill, the Secret Service "outriders" would have totally blocked any rear-view of JFK !!

("Theory...")

Then Lee says:

"Perhaps the SS blocking the shot had something to do with a botched shot that ended up hitting the curb by Tague? Elm has a very serious pitch and curve to it. The 2nd floor of the DalTex would literally provide a small 'window' of opportunity seems to me.

The inset is a crop from the Altgens 6 - maybe there is a face in the bottom right of the window. The radio seems consistent with one of those sliver Motorola Slimline 220s."

(Hope you don't mind me quoting you Lee.)

So getting back to the point of this thread, which is about shooters and locations, do other people see men, including one with a rifle, in the attached photo?"

(Oh, I should admit that I stole the photo from Lee too.)

Oh you are great JL. That's a keeper. The Persistence of Timesinks.

But, but, but... But, Myra. It's only because I'm having a bad hair day. Surely that is something a lady can forgive.

Not really; I have bad hair years.

Je suis environ aussi français que la statue de la liberté.

(That's a joke, courtesy of Babelfish.)

Je ne peux pas vous entendre avec ce chapeau dessus.

In a more serious vein, and with all due respect, it seems clear to me that anyone shooting from that lower DalTex window would have had to shoot through at least two, and perhaps three or even four other cars to hit Kennedy. I'm enclosing another image from the 3D model looking back up toward the DalTex building. Although the other vehicles are not in this view, I feel certain you are imaginative enough to put them there in your mind's eye. Then tell me what you think:

Hm, you may have a point. The two figures are on a low floor. So we'd (we ) need a side-view diagram with everyone in position for the shots from behind to see if the angles are possible. Hey! This is your area right? Can you provide evidence for my premise?

As far as I'm concerned, it's just one more red herring. And, really, not even a very clever one.

Huh? Anyways, do you see the two figures in the window? Let's establish that much.

The knoll shooter I doubt you need convincing on. The evidence is overwhelming, e.g., the stampede up the hill afterwards (in your picture).

Why, Myra, I'm shocked. Apparently you've abandoned reading my posts altogether, since the whole issue of the stampede up the knoll came about because I posited that the puff of smoke, and the ordering of all the personnel from the County Courts building into the same area behind the fence, was specifically and intentionally diversionary, to focus all attention exactly where the shooters warn't (as they say in my neck of the woods).

...Oops. Busted. Ok ok so I kinda scanned. My bad.

And this might surprise you: no shooters were found all up in there where the crowd and police surged.

What? So the shooters didn't loll around waiting for the welcome wagon to arrive? As you'd say, "shocking." And downright rude. I mean that's just not good manners.

Did you notice that every vehicle including the press bus had already passed? That indicates that some seconds went by before people started charging the knoll. And I suspect that the shooters had escape routes. In addition, early knoll chargers were greeted with the bogus SS men who showed weapons and told people to turn back. Not surprisingly, they did. So the knoll shooter(s) had plenty of time to bolt.

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

"THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE, WAS THERE

PHONY SECRET SERVICE AGENTS IN DEALEY PLAZA

Michael T. Griffith

1996@All Rights Reserved

Some witnesses said they encountered Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza moments after the assassination. These reports continue to be the subject of much controversy. Why? Because it has long been established that no genuine Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza until later that afternoon. This fact suggests phony Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza, and that they were there to help the assassins escape. David Scheim(1) summarizes:

"After the shooting, Dallas Police officer Joe M. Smith encountered another suspicious man in the lot behind the picket fence [on the grassy knoll]. Smith told the Warren Commission that when he drew his pistol and approached the man, the man "showed [smith] that he was a Secret Service agent."

Another witness also reported encountering a man who displayed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service agent. But according to Secret Service Chief James Rowley and agents at the scene, all Secret Service personnel stayed with the motorcade, as required by regulations, and none was stationed in the railroad parking lot [behind the grassy knoll]. It thus appeared that someone was carrying fraudulent Secret Service credentials--of no perceptible use to anyone but an escaping assassin. (Scheim 30-31)

Not only were there no Secret Service (SS) agents stationed on or behind the grassy knoll, but there were no FBI or other federal agents stationed there either. Officer Smith was not the only witness who encountered an apparently phony federal agent. Malcolm Summers ran to the knoll moments after the shooting. He related the following in the 1988 documentary Who Murdered JFK?:

"I ran across the--Elm Street to right there toward the knoll. It was there [pointing to a spot on the knoll]--and we were stopped by a man in a suit and he had an overcoat--over his arm and he, he, I saw a gun under that overcoat. And he--his comment was, "Don't you all come up here any further, you could get shot, or killed ," one of those words. A few months later, they told me they didn't have an FBI man in that area. If they didn't have anybody, it's a good question who it was. " (Anderson 14)"

Someone with your advanced language skills may notice that it's in French.

Voila! http://www.copweb.be/index.html

Michael! Thank you. For the translation and for taking off your hat in the presence of a lady. There are those that could learn from your fine example.

Myra, it is just as interesting to me that you have not bothered searching the archives for this information for it has been addressed not only here, but on Lancer, as well. I will address it once again just for you ....

My aren't your presumptious? Like you could possibly know if I've searched a forum. Nonetheless you've managed to back into a truth. Instead of "searching" I've actually looked at every thread on every page of the forum from start to finish. Not that I need to present my credentials to someone who mistakes coming to my own conclusions with not researching.

Let's get the blood issue straight first of all .... it was not blood, but rather the cranial fluid which when released from JFK's head - it was more of a watery mist. That mist was thrown into a stiff breeze which quickly pushed the mist cloud back over the President's head. If you wish to test this - try spitting into the wind and see what happens. If you doubt the wind gust that occurred at the time of the head shot, then watch the coats on Hill, Moorman and the BL at that moment and you will see them been blood wildly to the east to southeast.

I've already tried spitting into the wind, in metaphorical fashion, in this dialogue. Again you're ignoring the fact that the President's head exploded and one sixteenth of a second later there was no trace of it in the air--in any direction. If a "stiff breeze" blew it backward then it would be visible behind him. But it's not. There's no blood, no brain matter, no "cranial fluid," whatever you insist on calling it, after one sixteenth of a second. It covered the motorcycles and cops behind him in a totally invisible way in one sixteenth of a second. Bullxxxx.

The error over the Greer head turn was a result of its author thinking that Greer's head didn't move during a couple of frames once he started his head turn. When I checked this out for myself, I found that Greer's head was in fact turning with each frame once his actual head motion started and that his head turn was no faster than other peoples head turns during the motorcade trip from Love Field to Dealey Plaza. You will note a light shift on the top of Greer's head which the alteration author missed. That shift was a result of the head turning between those frames and the grid example clearly shows this IMO. The examples I speak of are offered to you below so that you may learn something from them. Again I will say this ... there is a reason why even the smuttiest tabloids don't even touch these claims even if you fell for them.

I don't care what the author said, I'm talking about my own observations. Greer's head and Mrs' Connelly's head turn impossibly fast. That can be seen in the moving film and in a frame by frame inspection. But you ignore the evidence, so I'll ignore you. Timesink someone more gullible.

And since we know there were shooters at Dal Tex and the knoll...

Excuse me? "We" who "knows" that? Did I not get the memo?

Ashton

That's correct Ashton. I distributed a memo to everyone but you because you refuse to remove your hat in the presence of a lady. So there.

Ok, I drew the Dal-Tex conclusion after looking at this page:

http://www.copweb.be/copweb%20jfk%20gazette-Mag01.htm#

Someone with your advanced language skills may notice that it's in French. However, the photos probably speak for themselves. (Then I go on to speak for them.) They show a shooter aiming a rifle (at least that's what I see) in the window of Dal-Tex, right by the fire escape that a man is sitting on. The shooter has a second man (spotter?) with him. (I also attached photos.)

The only photo that's retouched is the super closed up that's in color. That photo is showing their theory, but the others are naked eye kinda stuff with some magnification.

The knoll shooter I doubt you need convincing on. The evidence is overwhelming, e.g., the stampede up the hill afterwards (in your picture).

For some time, I have tried to find a HEIGHT for Jack Ruby.

So far I have found that NO AUTOPSY was performed, so nothing there.

I have found one WC deposition by a Dallas lawyer who said Ruby was 5'11".

The Bledsoe document says he was 5'9".

Can anyone here supply information about Ruby's height?

Jack

Well this isn't much help but Oswald was 5'9" (per http://www.famoustexans.com/leeharveyoswald.htm) and Ruby was clearly shorter than him in the photos of the shooting. Maybe 5'7"?

(image)

Nice arial view John.

I don't know if this was posted before, didn't see it, but in a triangulation shooting I'd think they would avoid placing shooters opposite each other. If they did they could accidently nail a "colleague" (I wish). So I assume that excludes almost 180 degrees from shooter placement. And since we know there were shooters at Dal Tex and the knoll, that seems like it'd exclude shooters on the South knoll and the County Records Bldg.

Not that I'm an expert on this subject (understatement).

If we have decided that the man in question is not Shaw, I would like to divert this thread to other so-called faces in the crowd.

I'm going off memory here (dangerous ploy) but I seem to recall that a European publication claimed a photo was taken along the parade route which showed Allen Dulles and Jack Ruby amongst the sea of faces. The claim was also made that great lengths were taken to make sure the image was not published in the United States.

All highly dubious of course but here is that image with the individuals in question circled.

FWIW.

James

Ruby, I don't think so. The nose doesn't seem right. The hairline either, tho' that could just be a difference of angle.

Dulles, certainly looks like him. I can't imagine him standing at the front of the crowd though where the President could see him. I doubt a definitive id could be made given the quality of the motorcade picture and the angle of "Dulles." Unfortunately.

On edit: Removed photos for space.