Myra Bronstein

Oh, of course. Thank you James.

Thank you John and James. These are amazing. James, do you know the context of the recent photo?

I think a live patsy is a very dangerous thing. That's been the conventional wisdom in the USA since 1963.

I ordered it from Amazon. Been looking for material on the Rockefellers link to President Kennedy. Thanks Nathaniel. ... Now are there any cheap books you'd like to recommend?

You know, I'm pretty much convinced that its Lovelady and not Oswald in the doorway, mainly because of the other photo of Lovelady from the rear, his head having a bald spot, that Oswald does not. Other James Douglas stories pan out and provide additional leads worth pursuing, like Wayne January's story of selling a cargo plane to a CIA airline and a pilot/Col. telling him that JFK was going to die within an hour of it happening. That airline can be identified and airplanes, like cars and boats, have records. BK It's Lovelady in the doorway. Unless the photo was tampered with.

Apparently in 1998 the author wrote a 17-page pamphlet entitled: Compassion and the Unspeakable in the Murders of Martin, Malcolm, JFK, RFK. http://www.amazon.com/Compassion-unspeakab...432&sr=1-12 Charles Drago started a thread about it here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry140562 More info here: http://portinexile.blogspot.com/2008/03/jf...books-4308.html Please let us know what you think if you read this book Mike. I'll do the same.

That is amazing. Clearly his book is a must read. Thank you for the link John. As a minor point, he flicks away the Bug with a very terse, yet gentlemanly, aside in response to the first question. I quite enjoyed that. Back to the major point, he looks at The Crime in a way I never considered--that essentially President Kennedy saved us from the worst case scenario of nuclear war, and for that we should be grateful. Whereas I consider the MIC's success in liquidating Kennedy to be the worst case scenario realized. Darkness extinguishing the light. Perhaps Douglass is right. And it's certainly refreshing, to say the least, to see someone speak the unspeakable truth in a relatively uplifting way.

Yes, well, a whole back story is being concocted. I'm guessing that someone in Ivin's position, a gov't scientist working on deadly bio-weapons, had to have high level security clearance. Yet he was supposedly a thundering homicidal loony blathering about killing people as long ago as 2000? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/03/a...p_n_116566.html ... 'Kay.

Remember the Tylenol Murders? http://www.tylenol.com/index.jhtml?s_kwcid...enol|1482852173 http://www.emedicinehealth.com/acetaminoph.../article_em.htm Tylenol Terrorists: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrori...ders/index.html http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/tylenol.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Chicago_Tylenol_murders Are you suggesting the MIC was behind the lacing of tylenol with cyanide? If so I'm unclear on the motive. Typically when the gov't intentionally spooks the herd (shock and awe) the motive is to make people afraid of speaking or acting out against the regime lest they be charged as "enemy combatants." For example, making no attempt to hide torture sends a message to the sheeple to stay in line or else. What was the intended outcome if the MIC was behind the tylenol episode?

"Ivins died Tuesday at Frederick Memorial Hospital in Maryland. The Times, quoting an unidentified colleague, said the scientist had taken a massive dose of a prescription Tylenol mixed with codeine." http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gH1fcT1...xHs9EQD929H22G0 The method of the reported "suicide" (who the hell chooses a slow, painful, uncertain demise if they want to snuff it?) is beyond bizarre and very unlikely. This fact leaves me wondering if the "suicide" story being reported is intentionally lame and transparent, possibly as a caveat to those who might oppose the regime. For more background on my line of reasoning read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine." Shock and awe shock and awe...

Good observation Nathaniel. After all: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." --White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, in 2002, after he was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq. http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transc...917.miller.html I had merely noticed that it was late in the Bush/Cheney regime and they are tying up loose ends. But you are absolutely right. I'm very glad to see this thread here because the link is obvious. Dead patsies are so convenient. Especially if they are tried and convicted postmortem in the media. That seems to be SOP. Maybe Mark Lane will step forward to defend Mr. Ivins as well.

Dang Ron. your list of parallels is so excellent I had to come back from the dead to give you props. BTW, FWIW, I think tying these two massive government crimes together is an important strategic hook in getting people to see what's in front of them.

Good to e-see you Charles. While I appreciate the research done in Survivor's Guilt, I mistrusted Vince from the start for a couple of reasons and now feel somewhat vindicated. Rather than restate the reasons for my mistrust, I'll just quote the explanation I posted here long ago: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofivers....php/t8640.html "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. ... 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. ... 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." Etc. Back to the present. I've chosen to post in this thread instead of the one Vince is now posting in (with noticeable vagueness) because... Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was the victim of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime/cover-up. I do wonder though why Debra Conway opted not to be involved with Vince's book. She posted a little on the subject in the past and was properly non-specific and polite about why Vince and Lancer didn't team up on his book. I respect her discretion, and yet I now can't help wonder if she had some insights long ago.

Charles was and is right about this forum. He was one of the last good researchers left here. I'm out.

Well guess what Evan, another moderator clearly disagrees with you. And they told me that Daniel's post was "over the top" in a private PM just prior to removing it from this thread. Sorry if that gives you a hitch in your giddyup. I know how much you like to swagger around playing deputy dog on the forum--the very personification of Barney Fife.

"John Lennon's youngest son yesterday blamed the fatal shooting of his father almost 20 years ago on a conspiracy backed by the United States government. Sean Lennon, who made his debut as a solo artist last month, told New Yorker magazine that the ex-Beatle was a "counter-cultural revolutionary" who the American government could not ignore. He said: "He was dangerous to the government. If he had said, 'Bomb the White House tomorrow', there would have been 10,000 people who would have done it. These pacifist revolutionaries are historically killed by the government. "Anybody who thinks that Mark Chapman [who shot Lennon outside his New York apartment in 1980] was just some crazy guy who killed my dad for his personal interests, is insane. Or very naive. Or hasn't thought about it clearly. It was in the best interests of the United States to have my dad killed. Definitely. And, you know, that worked against them because, once he died, his powers grew . . . They didn't get what they wanted." http://www.john-lennon.com/washingtonkilledlennon.htm “Well I suppose they tried to kill John, but they couldn’t because his message is still alive.” --Yoko Ono at the conclusion of the film "The US vs John Lennon"

Thanks Nathaniel. BTW I already made the mistake of reading Ultimate Sacrifice. Your warning came too late.

Usual Colby nonsensical argument accompanied by irrelevant analogies. Thanks very much Mike. I think the fact that Daniel's post was removed by a moderator confirms that it was over the top. I appreciate your support.

EXCUSE ME EVAN? "Daniel's" post number #24 was an all out anti-semitic rant with me as the target, so far over the line that I've been astounded neither moderators nor other forum members objected in the slightest, yet you accuse me of making personal attacks in response, and merely ask "Daniel" not to question motives?! I would like to hear from other moderators about this. Is post number 24 acceptable on this forum?

********************************************************* "Seriously, has anyone even noticed him before now?" I believe he was a fixture over at Debra's a few years back. In fact, I remember running into him over at Lancer's site around 2005 or 6, I believe. Um hm. Thank you Terry.

I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on why the CIA (presumably it was the CIA) set the trap for Nixon Stephen. Either in this thread or another. -------- Myra, I would strongly strongly strongly recomend the book Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan. I first heard of it on this forum and it sprained my hyperbole, for which I had always been proud. Ill just say its a really really really interesting book to read. Hope I can chime in on your question: 1) Detente-- ironically something that may have done in his debating partner of 1960 2) Centralizing "too much" power within the Whitehouse in the opinion of the CIA and Joint Chiefs-- again similar things were said about JFK and McNamara 3) Rumors that spread in the permanent buraucracy during secret backchannel negotiations-- another possible similarity. 4) wage and price controlls-- anathama to rightist economics 5) PERCEIVED continuation of Keynsian social spending. 6) differences over Vietnam poilicy 7) Kissinger, Henry. Catcher, batting 7th. 8) The War of the FBI succession. I heard that phrase used somewhere. What I think it means is that some saw Nixon as impinging on FBI turf in a similar way as he was impinging of CIA turf. Here the death of Hoover was significant. Thanks for the book recommendation Nathaniel; I'll look for it. Not sure I understand some of the items on your list. For example #7. Are you saying the CIA wanted to get rid of Kissinger? And, can you elaborate on #8. Are you saying Hoover was one of the conspirators against Nixon or a victim like Nixon?

Woah! An all out blistering flaming attack! Lordy. Complete with: -Insinuation that I'm a xxxxx, thereby demonstrating he doesn't know the definition of xxxxx. Ok. Now it's the Remedial Education Forum. So I'll define xxxxx for this guy--"Daniel Wayne Dunn" (who likes to put quotes around people's names so I assume he wants his own name in """quotes"""). A xxxxx is someone who isn't interested in the forum topic so posts irrelevant comments merely to evoke reaction. Clearly I'm interested in the topic of President Kennedy's assasination and many other political assassinations. -Actual for-real old-fashioned anti-semetic slurs. My god, what is this guy? Was he cryogenically frozen during WW2 and just now thawed out like some kind of goose-stepping Austin Powers? -Attacks on nearly everyone in the thread. I'll let Peter speak for himself--as he's more than capable of doing--on the outside chance that this "Daniel Wayne Dunn" person hasn't been put on his ignore list. -French lessons. To demonstrate that he can launch flame wars in two languages? -Apparent attempts to intimidate me by posting information about my background. Details SO personal and SOO intimate and SOOOOOOOO secretive that only someone with... uh, a PC and access to google could dig them up. Friggen hilarious. Is he trying to "out" someone who lives a very public life, has spoken to half the reporters on the planet, has spent a great deal of time in state and national capitals working with scores of politicions, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (Oh deary deary, I hope he doesn't uncover the very personal TOP SECRET fact that "Myra Bronstein" is also in a book being released on April 15 written by a NY Times reporter. Gosh, I hope no one sees that book... which is COMING SOON TO A BOOK STORE NEAR YOU.) -Shadowy bizarre musings that "Myra Bronstein" is some kind of online construct in parallel with his outing of "Myra Bronstein" as a very real person who has received a ton of press. Not strong on logic but, hey, these are... -Stream of gibbrish ramblings. Dark warnings that "Myra" has a--GASP--website! The horror! Rants about class divides and apparent jealousy that "Myra Bronstein" was offered a severance package when a past job was outsourced... Oo, I better not divulge how much money I made from those national commercials he mentioned lest he feel even more inferior about his self-perceived low station in life. Wow, is this guy a mass of exposed nerves and psychic damage or what? But here's the weird part. He wonders why it's "taken [me] this long to try confronting [him] directly." Er, I literally never noticed the guy until his little hissy fit today. Why would I have noticed this guy let alone confront him? Who the heck is he??? Anyone feel free to answer. Seriously, has anyone even noticed him before now?

Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80. Your cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts LOL yeah pointing out there was no real motive is "cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts" Very doubtful given what he said in his September 80 interview ------------- The government got Lennon hooked on downers and smack? I don't suppose any evidence will be forthcoming That seems to have stopped 8 years earlier ---------------- Len claims there was no real motive. Can you imagine John Lennon being silent during the 1980s? It was a strange hard right turn. But Lennnon was appealing to a number of different audiences. He was working class, and he was anti-war. With him around it would have been much harder to resurrect the great Hitler like stabbed in the back myth that Reagan and the corporate media made about Vietnam. Lennon was on record about Vietnam. HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALLY MOUTH FAKE CRITIGUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT. Governments are concerned by this coast to coast prime time media capacity of a REAL opposition figure. See Hoover's famous "black messiah comment. LENNON HAD THIS PRIME TIME NATIONAL MEDIA ABILITY. Think Nicaragaan contras. Now think of living John Lennon. Could well have been the tipping point. More so than another politician. ... EX-actly.

Omygod, how could I forget to quote Mae on this subject? Thank you Peter. http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%...assination.html http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%...hn%20Lennon.jpg "INTERVIEW WITH MAE BRUSSELL ON THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN ONO LENNON A short while ago we had the pleasure of talking to noted assassination/conspiracy researcher Mae Brussell at her home in Carmel, California. Mae was kind enough to share some of her thoughts on the murder of John Lennon last December 8, 1980 in New York City. She is just starting her 11th year of broadcasting on radio KLRB, Carmel, CA. Tom Davis *************************************** Tom: What would be the motive to kill John Lennon on December 8, 1980? Lennon had been in seclusion for many years and had not yet released his new album. Mae: Both the date of Lennon's murder, and the careful selection of this particular victim are very important. Six weeks after Lennon's death, Ronald Reagan would become President. Reagan and his soon-to-be appointed cabinet were prepared to build up the Pentagon war machine and increase the potential for war against the USSR. The first strike would fall on small countries like El Salvador and Guatemala. Lennon, alone, was the only man (even without his fellow Beatles) who had the ability to draw out one million anti-war protestors in any given city within 24 hours, if he opposed those war policies. John Lennon was a spiritual force. He was a giant, like Gandhi, a man who wrote about peace and brotherly love. He taught an entire generation to think for themselves and to challenge authority. Lennon and the Beatles' songs shout out the inequalities life and the messages of change. Change is a threat to the longtime status quo that Reagan's team exemplified. On my weekly radio broadcast of December 7, 1980, I stated that "the old assassination teams are coming back into power." The very people responsible for covering up the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, Reverend Martin Luther King, for Watergate and Koreagate, and the kidnapping and murder of Howard Hughes, and for hundreds of other deaths, had only six weeks before they would again be removing or silencing those voices of opposition to their policies. Lennon was coming out once more. His album was cut. He was preparing to be part of the world, a world which was a worse place since the time he had withdrawn with his family. It was a sure bet Lennon would react and become a social activist again. That was the threat. Lennon realized that there was danger coming back into public view. He took that dangerous chance, and we all lost! Tom: What is the first clue you look for if you are suspicious of a larger conspiracy to assassinate, whether it is John Lennon, President John F. Kennedy, or the recent attempts on President Reagan and Pope John Paul II? Mae: There are necessary connecting links in every assassination conspiracy. If any link of that chain falls apart and becomes exposed, the parts of the larger plot are more visible. When every element of that chain holds together and is present in the evidence and testimony regarding any particular murder, there has to be a larger conspiracy. (See accompanying diagram) The most important link in that chain is the selected decoy or patsy. Whoever is arrested at the scene of the crime, to the exclusion of other suspicious persons, becomes the "assassin." This single person must serve a purpose, namely, to divert all attention away from those people who have armed him and located him at the scene of the crime. Letters and diaries are always present and easily located to support the predetermined cover story. They provide a "motive", and are the glue that cements (we are told) the "loner" to his single purpose. In preparation for his "act", the decoy or patsy is moved across countries or overseas, traveling and staying at safe houses. He has no friends, no jobs, no means of support while at the same time staying at fancy hotels, spending lots of money, getting phone messages, and meeting lots of people. Very few people have the money to spend years in transit like these patsies, whose chances of being in selected locations at the precise moment their victim is murdered are minute and impossible without assistance. ... William Colby's Vietnam Phoenix program, staffed with agents who intensely hated the anti-war, social activists like John Lennon, had both the intent and the means to move persons like Chapman to their training camps and then to specific places planned as sites for future assassinations. Colby came back to the U.S. to become Director of the C.I.A. at a time (1973) when "Operation Chaos" was in full swing against the hippies, rock musicians, and anti-war protestors. Many of them were killed or otherwise neutralized. ... Tom: You apparently believe there was a government conspiracy to assassinate and silence John Lennon which was conducted by the same people who murdered other political figures and musicians in the past eighteen years? Mae: Absolutely! The federal government has maintained active programs to eliminate rock musicians and disrupt rock concerts. Senator Frank Church's Committee hearings in 1975 and the FBI Cointel-Programs clearly document the intent to break up any gatherings of the "new left". Nothing brought anti-war demonstrators together with political messages more effectively than music festivals. There is hard evidence the CIA assigned agents to "investigate the music industry." ... The murder of John Lennon is the tragic finale to an entire era, the reminder that once an artist becomes as popular and as political as he was, his enemies will be waiting to make sure his messages never appear again to awaken the slumbering youth." [Much more at the above links.]

John: Thanks so much for posting this. Amazing how much truth can be packed into less than 7 minutes. Just one more thing I need to send to everyone on my contact list. (Too ill to do it today, but will soon's this crud passes). Again thanks for all you do. Dawn Excellent details from Probe magazine here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKconExp.html (Hope you feel better soon Dawn.)