Myra Bronstein

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.

More pics of Shaw for comparison. Myra Bronstein ________________________________ Unfortunately, the Shaw look-alike in the Love Field photo that Chuck posted looks to be of average height. I read somewhere that Shaw was quite tall. Six-five or so. He sure looks tall in the lower photo which Myra posted of him surrounded by reporters and/or lawyers outside the courthouse. FWIW, Thomas ________________________________ Yup, he's too short. (And his upper lip's too short!) Good eye though Chuck.

Well that sure would be an interesting find if those were the events in the missing frames. I'm leaning towards believing that zapruger frames were tampered with to hide the incriminating limo slowdown (or stop) you mentioned, and to show a burst of blood shooting forward from the President's head to support the bullet from behind theory. Discussed here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8579&st=75 It looks like the Nix stretch shown here is approximately z312-334, based on the positions of people I think are Mary Moorman, woman in light coat still running, and first guy in dark suit. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ I'm going by the zapruder tape used here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ They gave many examples of supposed alteration flaws that I couldn't see. But I thought the head motions of Mrs Connelly and Greer were impossible, and the blood dissipation occuring in 1/16 of a second was beyond impossible. There would have to be many frame missing or tampered with to disguise those two events.

I haven't seen this addressed anywhere (searched forum, don't recall it in Best Evidence, etc). Coulda missed it of course. In "Trauma Room 1," Dr Crenshaw said that one of the last things he did at Parkland was close the President's eyes. But in the stare-of-death photo his eyes are open. (Don't want to attach it...'cause.) I don't know how significant this is, or how reliable Crenshaw is, but I thought I'd mention it.

Jack, you rely on peoples lack of knowledge of the subject so to feel as though they support your nonsense. The alleged limo stop has been addressed many times. When witnesses said the motorcade stopped for several seconds at the time of the kill shot to the President - people like yourself attributed their remarks to the limo, which is in error. Moorman's photo, which was filmed for TV not 30 - 35 minutes following the assassination, shows the limo in motion. Maybe Myra doesn't know this stuff and I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to be honest enough to point it out to her. Costella's alleged proof for alteration has also been mentioned in the past. Costella didn't seem to have a clue as to why the Life Magazine images were sharper than the MPI version. For some odd reason, Costella got it backwards and thought the MPI version should have been sharper than the Life stills published in their magazine. So once again I will point out that MPI used filters and other processes that caused a loss of sharpness to their Zfilm. Myra can think what she wishes and if she really buys into the mistakes you guys have made, then let her assist in trying to get even the most disrespected tabloids to pick up the story! You guys made claims that should have shaken the world and yet once educated people looked at what you came up with - they shook their heads and considered your claims ridiculous and this is why you have not gotten an ounce of interest shown from any news agencies - tabloid or otherwise. Bill Miller Interesting that you don't address the impossibly fast head motions and the impossibly fast dissapating blood Bill. You seem to ignore the points you can't explain. Which makes you a timesink. I seriously doubt I can learn anything useful from you.

There sems to be a good paper/witness trail that Shaw was on the West Coast at the time. I trust you will forgive me if I am skeptical of any paperwork/witness which gives a CIA operative an alibi? We have learned we can not rely upon the paper/witnesses from the Warren Report nor can we fully trust those provided by the other "investigations" undertaken over the years. Garrison mentions, at length in On the Trail of the Assassins, discussions between Shaw and Ferrie wherein they're discussing the alibis they'll use well in advance. It was a prime consideration. Since (as Chuck said) Shaw was CIA (was it Helms that admitted that?--I think so), it would be quite easy for him to get fake evidence to support his alibi. More pics of Shaw for comparison. The upper lip can look shorter depending on angle and expression.

I haven't read the Film Hoax book, but it's on order. I did find this URL in an earlier ed thread on the subject, and it's the most compelling thing I've seen so far. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ It supplies a film of Zapruder in the "click here" link almost half way down the page, and explains the importance of watching a stabilized version at normal speed. The examples I found most persuasive were here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/fast.html The impossibly fast head movements of Mrs. Connelly and the ever suspicious Greer. This page is also noteworthy, showing the lack of blur of both car and stationary objects in the Life magazine stills. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...intro/blur.html They address the critical "why" question, and I'm pretty satisfied with their answer. The altered film does not show that the limo stopped, which is incriminating to the driver and the SS. In fact it shows the limo speeding up at the same time four people are thrown forward from the force of a stop that is not shown. That's not to say that the stop is the only thing they're trying to hide, but it's a biggie. On edit: Another significant reason for alteration is to show a burst of blood shooting forward from the President's head, supporting the bullet from behind theory, rather than shooting backward, which shows a shot from the front. http://www.assassinationscience.com/johnco...ntro/blood.html It's quite noticable that the blood explosion disappears after just one frame (the infamous 313). So all that brain and skull and blood are supposed to have dissipated in 1/16 of a second? I don't think that's possible. This is aside from the question of available technology in the era in question, which you all are hashing out.

Thank you Michael, this looks excellent! People need to accept the truth about the CIA before they can accept what they've done domestically. And it outs Yale as a recruiting ground, and Skull and Bones. I may have to see that one.

That's really interesting Chuck. Would you mind posting the original photo you took the image from? It does look a lot like Shaw, except for the upper lip which isn't as long as Shaw's. Though that part of the image is pretty blurry.

Ah, ok I understand now; thanks Greg. True, I do need to look for tests from the era in question. Thanks for taking the time to explain it better.

And I actually like to find my own sources Greg. No Greg, and I wasn't posting it as an example of an injection method. As you like to say, "as I said in a previous post" it is an experiment in "transplanting" cancer cells. I clearly labeled it as such. You might want to take the time to read a post before you post a rebuke about someone not reading your post. Oh, whatever. I'm not personally experimenting on mice and I'm not keeping stats on those that do and don't develop cancer. I'm finding out how common it is to introduce cancer into mice. And based on a google search--as I said in a previous post--it's a common technique. That was the point of the post. There are many google hits on the search term. So I don't see a reason to be incredulous over the technique. Whether you're incredulous or not is your business. Are you serious? They blew away the president in broad daylight on a public street with hundreds of witnesses in the most conspicuous possible manner, and covered it up for years before Ruby died. They own the media. And they're supposed to care that killing yet another witness is "high risk"?

Myra, I think I mentioned in passing that it was my understanding that the interview with Roy Hargraves had been removed. I haven't seen the book yet and am not sure if this is true. There is a thread on Larry's book over in the authors section. It might be better, organizational-wise, to ask Larry questions there. He is a frequent contributor to this forum. The original thread on Larry's book is the longest, and possibly most informative, thread in the history of this forum. ... There's an author's section? Hargraves! Right, thanks Pat. Uh, well the second part to my question is how I can get that interview, from some kind forum member--HINT. But I will post in the author's section...as soon as I find it.

Someone mentioned one interview that was cut from the second edition (can't remember who was interviewed and can't find the thread). Was there more that was cut from the second edition, or was it just that one interview?

-MBMyra, OTTOTA was the second book I read on the case (first was Conspiracy). I'm up to about number 9. Ferrie told 3 or 4 different stories about how he lost his hair. Cancer research was one of the reasons he gave. -JSJohn, Found this today, It shows that there was concern even back then that his cancer was "artificially induced." I haven't seen the report, but needless to say, the FBI would not have found any evidence of this. ORIGINATOR : FBI FROM : [No From] TO : [No To] TITLE : [No Title] DATE : 03/17/1967 PAGES : 2 DOCUMENT TYPE : MEMORANDUM. SUBJECTS : RUBY, JACK; CANCER ARTIFICIALLY INDUCED. CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL CURRENT STATUS : OPEN DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 06/04/1993 COMMENTS : Box 15. Section 89. Also in NARA... confirmation that Eva had noticed he was seriously ill many weeks prior to his trip to Parkland. Some newspaper reports from Dec '66 that I've just located tend to support what I wrote in the original piece. From the Long Beach Press Telegram 12dec66: Ruby... was taken to Parkland Hospital Friday night after being treated for a week by the County Health Officer for a congested, tight-feeling chest. The hospital said he had pneumonia. ---- A malignant tumor was discovered Saturday to have nearly consumed a lymph node in Ruby's neck. The doctors said this signified there were other cites and the cancer had advanced. ---- Whatever the results of this weeks tests [to find where the cancer originated], Dr Sanford said, "I do not expect he will be able to go to court" as early as February for a retrial... The Nevada State Journal two days later reported... Cancer has been found in the lining of Ruby's chest, in addition to the lymph node on his neck, where it was originally discovered. Both lungs are filled with suspicious looking nodules. The cancer spread to these areas; physicians are still looking for the place it started. ---- The right lung was collapsed by the pressure of four quarts of fluid that were in his chest cavity when he was taken Friday from the Dallas County jail... ---- Dr Barnett said it was impossible to tell how long Ruby had been suffering from cancer and declined even to speculate whether he may have had it when he killed Oswald. My time is running out. I am breathing toward my last breath. I was set up and tried the minute I walked down that ramp. - Jack Ruby to reporters, 31mar65. Woah, more great info, thanks again Greg. In general I don't totally trust anyone on this subject, and even the trustworthy people should be double/triple checked. But Garrison is as trustworthy as anyone can be IMO. Of course he only stated that Ferrie was doing experiments. Nothing about results. I do want to learn more about the general subject of cancer experiments in mice. If researchers do such experimentation then it seems like they must have some way of inducing cancer in the animals. Do they transplant cancerous organs into them? Do they inject cells? Do they inject something else? Do they only get animals that already show signs of cancer? Well, it looks like cancer experiments can be done on mice by transplanting cancer cells into them (from a human or another mouse), after which they develop cancer. At least according to this source: "Experimental Cancers in Mice There are several different strategies for studying cancer in mice, and they vary in their ability to predict the behavior of cancers or therapies in human patients. For example, one can divide the types of mouse cancer models into five major categories: 1) inducing endogenous (naturally occurring) cancer in mice using chemical carcinogens, 2) inducing endogenous cancer in mice using genetic manipulation, 3) allowing mice to grow old and get spontaneous cancers, 4) transplanting human cancers into immune-deficient mice that cannot reject cells from a different species and 5) transplanting aggressive cancers from other mice. This last group represents the type of model we used in our experiments. Some therapies that work for the first four categories have difficulty treating these more aggressive mouse cancers. The SR/CR cancer resistant mouse was originally identified using these aggressive mouse cancers and, therefore, had to be a very effective resistance mechanism to have been detected. One might predict that such an effective mechanism might not only be able to kill cancer cells in the original mutant mouse, but perhaps one could transfer this mechanism to normal mice, as well." http://www1.wfubmc.edu/cancer/research/mice/part3.htm And it's easy to find websites that discuss, in a very matter of fact way, that mice are injected with cancer cells, after which they develop cancer: "One injection can give a mouse cancer but a second can cure it. That was one of the conclusions made from recent experiments on mice conducted by Steve Kennel and Saed Mirzadeh, both of ORNL's Life Sciences Division. Dozens of mice were injected with lung cancer or breast cancer cells. The injected cells lodged in the mouse lungs and grew there. Several of the mice were later anesthetized, and the tiny, solid tumors in the lungs were imaged by high-resolution X-ray computed tomography, using the ORNL-developed MicroCAT scanner (see MicroCAT "Sees" Hidden Mouse Defects)." http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/200...l-cci061802.php Googling on the terms "cancer experiments mice injected" turns up hit after hit referring to the injection of cancer cells into mice, and the cancer that results.

Well I'll definitely have to read more about Mac Walace, and Bobby Baker, and Billie Sol Estes... And O'Daniel, wew, they sure had them some kinda politicians in Texas. He's a piece of work. It looks like every progressive president, in this case FDR, has a klan out to get 'im. It worked with President Kennedy. There is earlier related discussion at this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=655

Myra, I have been unable to track down any reference to a book (or video) entitled "Body of Evidence." Can you tell us more about it? Thank you. Oh, I'm so sorry Raymond. That was a misnomer; I meant "Best Evidence" by David Lifton. I mispeak like that every time I mention that book, 'cause it's focused on the evidence associated with the body, so... http://www.amazon.com/Best-Evidence-Op-Dav...TF8&s=books I'm sure I'll keep doing the same thing. It's implanted in my head. Myra, I have been unable to track down any reference to a book (or video) entitled "Body of Evidence." Can you tell us more about it? Thank you. Is that the one with David Lifton and Madonna and the knky sex scene in the parking garage? I wish!

Mac Wallace??? Wasn't he kind of a... xxxx up? He bungled the job on Henry Marshall horribly. Tried to set it up as a carbon monixide suicide but left a gash in Marshall's head, turned off the truck after the "suicide" and shot the victim 5 times with a bolt action rifle. He might have killed a lot of people for Johnson in Texas but I don't think he'd be trusted with anything of national scope. Hello Myra - this doesn't preclude his use as leverage to be used against Johnson if required. The Loy Factor account [Men on the Sixth [maybe Fifth] Floor] is quite compelling - plus the print studies. Use of Mac would be very intelligent if one wanted to ensure LBJ played ball. No time at the present, however, his description [horn rims, etc.] sounds too similar to what quite a few witnesses reported to simply discard. If we can credit Factor - then Wallace is working with a cell - which includes a cuban woman, and a possible Oswald double. The Sam Rayburn funeral is also an interesting connection. Plus - in hindsight, it doesn't really matter if he hit anything. - lee Well, I've wondered about the Johnson/Hoover talk of Nov 29: "Lyndon B. Johnson: How many shots were fired? Three? J. Edgar Hoover: Three. Lyndon B. Johnson: Any of them fired at me? J. Edgar Hoover: No. Lyndon B. Johnson: All three at the President? ... Lyndon B. Johnson: Were they aiming at the President?" http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjohnsonLB.htm It could possibly have indicated his genuine concern over his own nasty ol' hyde. But it's a stretch for me to think of LBJ as anything other than one of the leaders in the murder, what with the fact that he was the one in dire danger if President Kennedy lived. He was being dropped from the ticket and was about to get nailed in the Bobby Baker investigation. And it's even more of a stretch to think that the assassin LBJ used would then be used against him. Granted these types do tend to free lance. I'm having trouble understanding some of what you're saying. Are you saying some witnesses of the men on the 5th and 6th floors of the TSBD described a man that could be Wallace? I don't know anything about the Sam Rayburn funeral. Care to summarize the interesting connection you refer to? Francesca did a nice job of filling in some details - thanks Francesca! Let's look at it this way - LBJ doesn't need to know any intricate details about anything. He may have been 'aware' - he may have even had a conversation with someone - but he's probably not accustomed to doing any nitty gritty work - more of a point the finger and get it done type. Which would make sense afterwards when we consider his documented paranoia, and reports of his serious concern over a 'conspiracy' - since it would almost appear that he was ignorant as to the details. So I am not implying that he would have commissioned his 'man' to be present. As to his being dropped from the ticket - still a matter of debate. On Baker, he would probably still be okay - depends on how he plays his cards, and how his other card players do as well. From the plotters perspective, it seems wise to get some dirt on LBJ in order to ensure you've got some skin in the game to work with. Makes a great deal of good logical sense. As to Mac being some sort of freelance - reused for other assignments - well, sounds more like he was a special type. A 'family thug.' But I have never really studied him in great detail - I only like the game plan. - lee Ah thank you Francesca, Lee. Ok, all clear. I'd assumed that the DCM in the TSBD was Cuban. Maybe not. John included a really intriguing scenario of James' on his site: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwallaceM.htm "(16) James Richards, JFK Assassination Forum (25th June, 2004) LBJ cronies most likely played a part in the cover-up. I hold the belief that the assassination itself and the cover-up were two different things. I also believe what the plotters were hoping to get out of the assassination did not come to fruition. If Wallace was present on the 6th floor of the TSBD, then he was most likely recruited as part of an operating cell that needed to be managed just like all the others. He would not have been included for his ability as a hitman as at best his past exploits in that area were sloppy to say the least. I'm sure Wallace was there to tie Johnson into events if Johnson decided to turn on the plotters themselves. If Johnson was going to take the top job as a result of Kennedy's demise then I'm sure he needed to bring something to the table, even inadvertently. I do not believe Wallace fired a shot that day." (He mentions the very thing that threw me, the fact that Wallace was quite inept.)

Palamara's account is fascinating: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1/v4n1chapter13.pdf Yes. Agent Art Godfrey was "unusually close" to Nixon. Clint Hill and another agent had oil interests. Wonder if they obtained those interests in the form of a reward. I'm stunned to read that any SS agents supposedly had good feelings about the President. Did Boring (or whoever made assignments) carefully select only Kennedy haters and drunken buffoons for the Dallas trip? Well, ok I'm warming up to Palamara's book. There's some dang good info in there.

Good find. Well I'm googling, and there's this: "18. Douglas Weldon, "The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963," in James H. Fetzer (ed.), Murder in Dealey Plaza (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2000), pp. 129-158; Pamela McElwain-Brown, "An Examination of the Presidential Limousine in the White House Garage, Kennedy Assassination Chronicles 5(4)(Winter 1999), p. 18. Parkland Hospital nurse Shirley Randall stated that as JFK was being rushed on a carriage to the emergency room, "some man" in the presidential party "asked me if I would get someone to come and wash the blood out of the car." (She said that she was "so excited and nervous" that she forgot about it.) (WC 21:217.) Former SS agent Jerry O'Rourke, who helped protect JFK in Fort Worth on the morning of the assassination, has said he was later told by a fellow agent of being ordered to remove blood from the car (Ellen Miller, "Ex-Agent Refuses to Toe Party Line on JFK Slaying," Rocky Mountain News, November 20, 2003). See photo of SS agents Samuel Kinney and George Hickey at Parkland attaching the top to the limo with a water bucket sitting beside them." http://www.hobrad.com/acreumbr.htm Looks like the full article is quoted here: http://www.usenet.com/newsgroups/soc.cultu...n/msg11245.html O'Rourke is a bit off on his description of the back wound trajectory, but is sure is an interesting piece. "Instructions were given to lie. The agent in charge of motorcade protection told O'Rourke that he was told by the Warren Commission during his testimony that he did not hear a fourth shot and he did not see someone running across the grassy knoll. But the agent insisted that his account was accurate." The agent in charge of motorcade protection--wouldn't that be Kellerman?

I'm sensing a wee bit of a neurological firestorm now...

Ok, my confusion is in remission. The additional info helped. Thanks Michael. I'll shut up and read the entire book then. I am especially interested in the fact that some SS guys were accomplices and appreciate Palamara's focus on them. What they got away with is beyond belief.

Yes, it's clear. Thanks. And it's this very assessment of Kellerman that makes me wonder why Palamara ignored the the transcript of Kellerman arranging for the body to go to a different hospital than the casket, in "Best Evidence." On Amazon Palamara claims that Best Evidence has been largly debunked, but doesn't give specifics. He cites Livingstone as the debunker, but doesn't name the book, and Livingstone has many books on President Kennedy's killing. I don't need convincing that Ultimate Sacrifice lacks value. And, in fact, Palamara's endorsement of Ultimate Sacrifice is one of the red flags about him. I consider that book to be out and out disinformation, a mob dunnit smokescreen. I'd love to hear why you think Best Evidence and Final Judgement are getting obsolete, if it's not too much work for you. Can you name just a couple of specifics that have been debunked? No point in wasting time reading Final Judgement if there's a negative concensus about it's worth. Do you accept Lifton's premise that the President's body was hustled off to Walter Reed for alteration while the empty casket went to Bethesda? That's one of his more significant conclusions, and I accept it. I can't think of a better explanation for the changes to the body. And it certainly explains why they wouldn't start the oath until Jackie was there... away from the coffin. I do appreciate his criticisims of Hill, and in fact it's impacted my opinion of Hill. I've come away with a negative assessment of all the SS guys, even Rybka for his cover up work after the fact. And the fact that Hill went on the drinking binge makes him totally scummy in my view. There's no excuse. Thanks for the link. I did read it and I appreciate the good compilations of pros and cons for each agent. In fact I'll probably read some more. He does compile some good info, though it's hardly exhaustive (based on his ommission of the transcript testimony from Best Evidence.) In fact one reason why I care about his verdict on Kellerman is that I think he's dirty so he's sort of a litmis test for Palamara's credibility. But Palamara rattles of a laundry list of contradictions in Kellerman's testimony and remarks, then gives a terse conclusion that he's a patsy without any explanation. I think there's enough there to conclude the opposite. At the very least I'd think Kellerman is inconclusive. But stating he's a patsy seems overly generous. Granted it's likely just a difference of opinion, but since Palamara doesn't explain his verdict it's hard to debate. I'm relieved to see that Palamara concluded that Emery Roberts was dodgy. Roberts is the biggest litmus test. If someone tried to tell me he was clean they'd lose all credibility.

In addition, a good maitre de will always offer a pepper mill and a geiger counter to their customers.

"Trauma Room One" excerpt: 12:29 pm on Nov 22, '63, Dallas -- "Geneva Hine, the only employee in the Depository's second-floor offices, observes the electrical power and telephone system go dead. The Dallas Police radio systems Channel One, reserved for officers participating in the security of the President, is suddenly immobilized." 12:30 -- President Kennedy murdered 12:33 pm, DC -- "A breakdown in the telephone system in the nation's capital occurs. It will not be restored for almost an hour." "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy," one of the first books on the RFK assassination, reports that immediately after the 1968 murder the police radios are immobilized for an extended period of time. (I don't have the book in front of me so I can't quote.) Assassination protocol, requires multiple people with power and clout.

Well I'm really puzzled here. I've read a fair amount of Palamara's research and I disagree with his conclusions about Kellerman. So many sources show Kellerman's behavior to be beyond suspicious that I just have to wonder if Palamara saw these sources. He gives a brief review of about every JFK assassination book on Amazon, so I doubt he missed seeing the books. And he gives a glowing review to "Ultimate Sacrifice," which I consider the official bible of the mob dunnit sect bent on advancing the official post HSCA mythology, which also makes me wonder. Here's part of what he wrote: ""Ultimate Sacrifice" is THE ultimate book on the JFK case (with a nod to Larry Hancock's "Someone Would Have Talked" as a very nice companion volume)! Not only is it very well written and put together (and lengthy: over 900 pages!), it is extremely well documented and thought out. There is no other way to put it: forget all the many "theories" on the case put forward by others, however well meaning---"Ultimate Sacrifice" puts forward solid FACTS via HISTORIANS, utilizing a vast trove of (new) documents and unique-to-the-authors' knowledge obtained from Kennedy insiders, among many others. There WAS indeed a conspiracy involved in the death of JFK...and "Ultimate Sacrifice" lays out the 'who', the 'what', and the 'why' better than any book I have ever seen. Get this book asap! "" Yup, the mob dunnit. Kellerman, in particular, seems dirty as hell. In "Trauma Room 1" he's consistently shown as the "thug" who is in charge of stealing President Kennedy's body from Parkland. He actually pulls a machine gun on the doctors and officials attempting to prevent the theft, and Dr Crenshaw, the author, feels certain he would have killed anyone in his way. In "Body of Evidence" Kellerman is shown, in a transcript, to be actively arranging the diversion of the body to Walter Reed (for alteration) as the empty casket goes to Bethesda. Kellerman's behavior during the Dallas trip was outrageous. He sat and watched Kennedy die as his counterpart SS agent in LBJ's SS car supposedly shielded his charge. Do you guys agree with Palamara's assessment of Kellerman as a "patsy"?