Myra Bronstein

John, Here's a quote that I find very relevant to the topic of propaganda and Operation Mockingbird: The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - William Colby, former CIA Director Guess that would make Colby a logical addition to that section of your website.

I'm starting to think that MacArthur had good reason to be pissed: "The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable. ... Another startling fact about the military connection to the dropping of the bomb is the lack of knowledge on the part of General MacArthur about the existence of the bomb and whether it was to be dropped. Alperovitz states "MacArthur knew nothing about advance planning for the atomic bomb’s use until almost the last minute. Nor was he personally in the chain of command in this connection; the order came straight from Washington. Indeed, the War Department waited until five days before the bombing of Hiroshima even to notify MacArthur – the commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific – of the existence of the atomic bomb." --The Hiroshima Myth by John V. Denson, http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

An interesting quote from Einstein/"Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb" : "A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view: "Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." ("Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb", New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1)." http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm And here's a good article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

Unfortunately it looks like all of Carroll's posts have been deleted. And I didn't find any seminars or watergate related material Oglesby. Disappointing 'cause I'm extremely interested in the Kennedy assassination-Watergate tie in. So if you have resources to point to--books, articles, posts--that'd be great. Myra, John has begun scanning Carl Oglesby's book The Yankee and Cowboy War. It's on the jfk assassination debate part of the forum. He started this over July 4th and is up to I believe chapter 4-5 now. YOu will have to page forward to find it. Carl steadfastly refuses to get online so is not able to join us here. I do have some fantastic news about him tho: his SDS book that he worked on for the last 17 or so years is going to be published by Simon and Shuster (sp?). Did not know Tim's stuff had been deleted again. That's really too bad. Dawn ps Myra: If you have the next week free - (: - I suggest you read all of Aston Gray's posts from this past summer. Great stuff. Thank you Dawn. I've just started reading Oglesby's stuff now that you kicked it to the surface. I was only looking in the Seminar section. What's "SDS"? Regardless, if a major publisher will finally print something besides the myth, and authors don't have to go thru what Mark Lane went thru, thats great. Re: Ashton Gray's posts, I've read quite a few. And I'm not very knowledgable about Watergate, tho' I want to remedy that, in particular how it relates to President Kennedy's murder. And from what little I do know I believe they were closely related. So I'm surprised to see him say that the Bay of Pigs was just the Bay of Pigs (and a cigar is just a cigar) in Nixon-speak, and that Nixon had no hand in JFK's death. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting his opinions.) I'll read more (uh, maybe not for a solid week , but so far I'm leaning in the opposite from Ashton direction.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reportedly military targets.... Truman is much more innocent when it comes to the CIA. He interpreted the CIA as an intelligence collection service. In his later years, he wrote letters to the media stating that if he'd known the CIA would become involved in operations, he'd never have allowed its creation. Well that's an interesting kind of loophole to consider Hiroshima a military target. I googled around to find more on this. I love this post I found at: http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/lists_archiv...ies-l/1213.html "A brief comment in hopes of clarifying some of this discussion on the bombing o Hiroshima. I'm not sure any if what I write below really affects the question of morality during wartime--or adds much to what has been written before--but perhaps a few new facts might assist some in making up there mind about this intriguing debate that has been going on. It is true that there was a Japanese army base on the outskirts of Hiroshima--it was a major staging area for the invasion and occupation of Southeast Asia. But historians have questioned the claim that the existence of the military base made Hiroshima a "military target." The only text I have on the bombing handy is Lifton and Mitchell, _Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial_--not the most objective source--but the two most prominent historians who have written on the development and use of atomic weapons, Richard Rhoades and Gar Alperovitz, agree on many of the basic facts. On the military nature of the bombing: It is doubtful that the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was intended for any of the military bases. The bomb was dropped in the center of the city, miles from either the army or navy base. Given that the destructive capability of the bomb was not fully known, it is doubtful that the air force would have targeted the center of town if the bases were the intended targets. But few historians have ever argued that the bombing of Hiroshima was intended as a strategic, tactical strike on a particular target. ... What worked well as a message to the Japanese might also work as a message to the Soviets, who were mobilizing to enter the war in Asia. I believe the old saying goes, "Hiroshima was bombed at the end of WWII, but Nagasaki was bombed at the beginning of the Cold War." ... Sadly, we have never learned any real lessons from our military escapades. And that is perhaps the most immoral thing of all. Successful or unsuccessful, American never learn the lessons that wars might teach. As much as we think war memorials are about remembering, they are in fact about forgetting." And regarding this: "Truman is much more innocent when it comes to the CIA. He interpreted the CIA as an intelligence collection service. In his later years, he wrote letters to the media stating that if he'd known the CIA would become involved in operations, he'd never have allowed its creation." I know Truman claimed innocence in his Washington Post letter dated exactly one month after President Kennedy's murder at the hands of the CIA. But I have a hard time believing that he honestly didn't see any potential harm in having covert agents accountable to no one. Isn't that exactly why he supposedly broke up the OSS after WW2? He was afraid it would turn into a gestapo. So what changed in the year or two between breaking up the OSS to avoid a gestapo and creating the CIA? ************************************************************* "Anyone else think Truman one of the worst presidents, ever?" My Dad, rest his soul. He was a Democrat before [as he used to complain] FDR pulled MacArthur from the Asian theatre just as he was positioning to take North Korea under the U.S. flag. After that egregious error [in my Dad's opinion] in strategic military/political maneuvering, he voted Republican, right or wrong. Although, he did agree with some of Kennedy's policies and often referred to him as a "conservative liberal," or a "conservative democrat," which seemed like a contradiction in terms to me, at the time. I was 15 to 18 years of age, during Kennedy's term in office. "he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank." I was under the impression that it was Winston Churchill who helped create the climate of the "Cold War" by terming the Russian occupied territories as "The Iron Curtain." Remember, Russia had been part of the Allied Forces helping to liberate Europe from German occupation. The spoils of war were divided up by the conquering forces on both sides of the battle lines. ... Ohh, that does predate the Truman Doctrine. What a powerful and lasting image that conjured up--"iron curtain." Mm hm, thank you Terry. Very helpful info.

Thanks, John, for providing those quotes. That Truman dropped the bomb to save American and Japanese lives is one of the myths fed Americans with their morning breakfast. I believed it myself until a few years back. Another myth fed us, even in the new anti-war propaganda film Flags of our Fathers, is that bloody battles such as Iwo Jima were a necessary evil. According to MacArthur's memoirs, the battle of Iwo Jima was totally unnecessary, as the recapture of the Phillipines put the U.S. in striking distance of Japan. As Iwo Jima was Japanese soil, it seems likely in retrospect that the U.S. wanted the battle for Iwo to be bloody, so that it could justify dropping the bomb to prevent "loss of life." War is hell. That really is a smoking gun kind of quote John: "Our dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan forced Russia to reconsider her position in the Far East." That's exactly the kind of rationalization I'm looking for in trying to make sense of Truman's thoughts. And Pat that's my definite impression too, that the bomb drop as life saver scenario was a way of making the horrible facts more palatable, i.e., propaganda. For example Truman's insistence on unconditional surrender seems almost designed to keep the Japanese in the war until the moment was right. There were people in his administration--Sect of War Stimson for one I believe--who damn well knew that denying the Japanese their Emperor, their god, would destroy them. (Stimson, in spite of his title, seemed to be the one to try, unsuccessfully, to modulate the blood thirst.) There's no way the Japanese could risk losing their Emporer. So the tosses bombs on a couple of hundred thousand civilians, *then* lets them keep their Emperor anyway. Could have done that without the bombing, unless of course the objective lay elsewhere, as Pat said. I don't know anything about Iwo Jima or MacArthur, but I believe the photograph that the Arlington statue was taken from was staged. Figures. It only makes sense that the symbol be as bogus as the war. Anyway, I guess another question is why the second, Nagasaki bomb, was dropped. Presumably also to force an end to the war before Russia could insist on a slice of Japan. Well, I'm trying to be quasi-fair in my assessment of Truman. But he just made so many decisions that, in retrospect, turned out so horribly. Even if he meant well at the time in some cases (and I'm not convinced he did), isn't a prez supposed to be judged over the long term?

Thank you so much Dawn! Hey, has anyone read George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography --- by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin? http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm Here is his premise about Watergate and President Kennedy: "Broadly speaking, Watergate was a coup d'etat which was instrumental in laying the basis for the specific new type of authoritarian-totalitarian regime which now rules the United States. The purpose of the coup was to rearrange the dominant institutions of the US government so as to enhance their ability to carry out policies agreeable to the increasingly urgent dictates of the British-dominated Morgan- Rockefeller-Mellon-Harriman financier faction. The immediate beneficiaries of the coup have been that class of bureaucratic, technocratic administrators who have held the highest public offices, exercising power in many cases almost without interruption, since the days of the Watergate scandal. It is obvious that George Bush himself is one of the most prominent of such beneficiaries. ... The changes subsumed by Watergate included the abolition of government's function as a means to distribute the rewards and benefits of economic progress among the principal constituency groups upon whose support the shifting political coalitions depended for their success. Henceforth, government would appear as the means by which the sacrifices and penalties of austerity and declining standards of living would be imposed on a passive and stupefied population. The constitutional office of the president was to be virtually destroyed, and the power of the usurious banking elites above and behind the presidency was to be radically enhanced. ... We must recall that the backdrop for Watergate had been provided first of all by the collapse of the international monetary system, as made official by Nixon's austerity decrees imposing a wage and price freeze starting on the fateful day of August 15, 1971. What followed was an attempt to run the entire US economy under the top-down diktat of the Pay Board and the Price Commission. This economic state of emergency was then compounded by the artificial oil shortages orchestrated by the companies of the international oil cartel during late 1973 and 1974, all in the wake of Kissinger's October 1973 Middle East War and the Arab oil boycott."" He barely mentions Kennedy's assassination. So I'm kind of mystified. Any opinions on the merit of Tarpley Chaitkin's assertions that Watergate had economic/banking/monetary motives and not much to do with President Kennedy?

The more I read about Truman the more appalled I get. In addition to the obvious--dropping atom bombs on civilian targets--he: Started the Cold War (which is the tie in to President Kennedy), hatched the CIA, and oversaw the creation of the World Bank. That's quite the smorgasbord of evil. Individually each did (does) a lot to undermine democracy; collectively it's overwhelming to contemplate the impact. Am I being unfair to him? Are many of these episodes and institutions a good idea gone bad? Or are they, as they seem to be, a bad idea gone bad? Was Truman just clueless or was he well meaning but deluded? And why did he tell the US public that he'd just dumped an atom bomb on Hiroshima, and call it a "military base"??? http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-ag09.html He also wrote in his diary that he would only drop bombs on military targets. http://www.dannen.com/decision/hst-jl25.html Then the matter seems to be dropped (so to speak) and alluva sudden bombs are tossed onto cities. Does anyone know what happened in this gap between insisting he'd target Japanese military bases and not cities, and bombing cities?

Myra, A Citizen's Dissent is little-known and rarely-read. As Lane's follow-up to his best-selling Rush to Judgment, you'd think it would have received a lot of attention and at least moderate sales. Nope. A few years back, I came across a book from the early 70s on the American media. This book, which took no stance on the assassination whatsoever, nevertheless decided to use A Citizen's Dissent as a case study. It turned out that, while RTJ had received something like 180 reviews nationwide (which amounts to free publicity) A Citizen's Dissent had received less than 5. The author concluded that the book, and its DISSENT, had been deliberately ignored. This, of course, reinforces the theme of Lane's book. Ah, thanks Pat. That explains it. My library system doesn't have it so I'll have to do an inter-library loan. Now that I know the back-story I'm determined to read it. Amazing what Lane has had to go through to get his books published. That is quite the iron curtain the US media has in place.

Unfortunately it looks like all of Carroll's posts have been deleted. And I didn't find any seminars or watergate related material Oglesby. Disappointing 'cause I'm extremely interested in the Kennedy assassination-Watergate tie in. So if you have resources to point to--books, articles, posts--that'd be great.

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

Lane's A Citizen's Dissent remains the most comprehensive demolition of the "free" American press I've read. Although it enjoyed a much smaller readership, Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher was equally devastating to the Commission's findings, in my opinion. Of course, so was Weisberg's Whitewash. The courage and persistence of Lane, Meagher and Weisberg in the face of incredible opposition are to be admired. It's a shame they never got to see justice administered to President Kennedy's murderers. Now there's one I hadn't read for some reason. It'll go on the massive jumbo queue. Thanks for the tip Michael.

I'll just be a dittohead here. Mark Lane's one of the cornerstones of the research community. I've read more dot connecting type books by him than by any other author. I do wish he'd expand his scope to incorporate RFK however, and ideally Malcolm X.

************************************************************ "The CIA Meets MIT Several decades ago, the CIA decided to establish an office in Cambridge near the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They rented out a space in Technology Square, in the same building as the Laboratory for Computer Science, and set themselves up as the Charles I. Andersen Music Company. Now, MIT students are no idiots, and it took them all of five minutes to figure out just what kind of music company would set up offices in Tech Square. MIT students, especially hackers, are well-known for their sense of humor, and this was just too choice a target to pass up. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=11...p;lastnode_id=0 "Web editor's note: Max F. Millikan was an economics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology during the 1950s. From 1951-52 he took a leave of absence to serve as assistant CIA director. Upon returning he became director of MIT's Center for International Studies, which was funded by the CIA and Ford Foundation." http://www.cia-on-campus.org/mit.edu/max.html "MIT alumni formerly in the American public service include Secretary of Defense Les Aspin (Ph.D XIV '66), former Director of the CIA John M. Deutch (Ph.D V '66),"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts...e_of_Technology Well, look at it from this P.O.V., my friend. Harvard University, with the labs that spawned the likes of Ken Kesey, Tim Leary, and their "Kool-Aide Acid Test" experiments. Oh, and let's not forget Ted "The Unibomber" Kozinsky, another product of what might be expected to "accidently" merge into the mainstream of American life from those "ivy halls," as well? They're not too far away from one another. Harvard and MIT, I mean. Like a couple of miles away. They're both situated right on the Charles River, with MIT on one side wedged parallel between Memorial Drive and Vassar Street, and Harvard on the other side, a little further up the river where it bends alongside Soldier's Field Road, rounding the campus on three sides. Just a thought. http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searc...p;zipcode=#west Wow, you're like "X" in the movie "JFK." I guess I don't have a good sense of the extent of the CIA's infiltration of universities. I mean, I know it's huge, but I don't know the specifics. MIT just stands out to me. And Noam leaps out. Harvard eh? President Kennedy's school??? Oh yeah, LSD was originally a CIA experiment in mind control I think. Timothy Leary? A CIA hack? Hm.

Yeah it's hard to get past that. Not the most reliable eye witness testimony.

Yes I was just wondering about that myself whilst reading the above article. Maybe he was rushing to get the account written down and just made a mistake but it seems an odd one to make over something that quite clearly was not on the car. I was also interested to read that there was a 'mobile radio telephone' in the press bus. Does anyone know what one of these thing would have looked like back then? I wasn't evn aware there were any kind of 'mobile telephones' around that far back? Sad to read he killed himself, didn't know that. Gotta wonder about the artist's agenda too. He made a point in his interview of saying the painting wasn't about conspiracy theories, it was about "closure." Closure my ass. This is an unsolved crime. The criminals all profited richly. President Kennedy did not get justice. The cover-up continues as his reputation and accomplishments are strategically distorted. The investigation continues and the truth will be told. And even then there will be no friggen "closure." ...Nice painting though.

Ah, my favorite speech by him...as you can probably tell from my sig line.

Blurb on David Corn re 911: "The possibility that the president of the United States would either allow an attack on Americans to further a political agenda is so horrifying that many reject the possibility out of hand. David Corn of The Nation stated a common reaction when he said "the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd." Corn writes that "to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence." Beyond the capability of the military-intelligence establishment with hundreds of billions of dollars to spend every year, but the operation was not, according to the official story, beyond the powers of a Muslim extremist operating in a cave in Afghanistan. Obviously someone did it and it was a very impressive operation. We are told it was Osama bin Laden, and perhaps it was. Corn, like most Americans, is more comfortable believing his government would never be capable of failing to act to protect its own people. History clearly shows otherwise." http://www.davidcogswell.com/Essays/Northwoods911.html

I've had suspicions, I've looked through a lot of old threads on CIA propaganda assetts of the "left." A couple of things that keep popping up: Noam Chomsky and MIT. Any opinions? -Noam seems to warn against all sorts of evils while denying many specific examples of those evils. "Noam Chomsky - Controlled Asset Of The New World Order Commentary By Daniel L. Abrahamson Since 9-11, he has steadfastly refused to discuss the evidence of government complicity and prior knowledge. Furthermore, he claims that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Bilderberg Committee, and Trilateral Commission are "nothing organizations." When critiquing poverty, he never mentions the Federal Reserve and their role in manipulating the cycle of debt. Similarly, he claims the CIA was never a rogue organization and is an innocent scapegoat; that JFK was killed by the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that the obvious vote fraud in 2004 did not occur..." ... The Left gatekeepers must manage the delicate tight rope act of appearing radical while in actuality calling for worldwide enslavement and murder. In all likelihood they get a little help from the propaganda scientists at the venerable Tavistock institute in London and adjuncts of the CIA's Mockingbird program; clearly the Left's denial of 9-11 truths has been too coordinated too have simply been a freak occurrence." http://www.rense.com/general67/noam.htm -MIT just comes up over and over in reading about history, or suspicions, of CIA activities on campus. "The CIA Meets MIT Several decades ago, the CIA decided to establish an office in Cambridge near the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They rented out a space in Technology Square, in the same building as the Laboratory for Computer Science, and set themselves up as the Charles I. Andersen Music Company. Now, MIT students are no idiots, and it took them all of five minutes to figure out just what kind of music company would set up offices in Tech Square. MIT students, especially hackers, are well-known for their sense of humor, and this was just too choice a target to pass up. http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=11...p;lastnode_id=0 "Web editor's note: Max F. Millikan was an economics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology during the 1950s. From 1951-52 he took a leave of absence to serve as assistant CIA director. Upon returning he became director of MIT's Center for International Studies, which was funded by the CIA and Ford Foundation." http://www.cia-on-campus.org/mit.edu/max.html "MIT alumni formerly in the American public service include Secretary of Defense Les Aspin (Ph.D XIV '66), former Director of the CIA John M. Deutch (Ph.D V '66),"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts...e_of_Technology

John, I think The Nation magazine warrants some kind of mention in "Masters of Deceit: Propaganda, Disinformation and Corruption!" Ref: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=6440&st=15 And possibly Matt Taibbi. Here is the jaw-dropping smear piece he wrote--in The Nation--on General Wesley Clark. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20031215/taibbi I promise you I can pick apart every inch of it. (Good lord, he accused him of liking Napoleon...the *pastry*. )

YES! It's not just me! I've boycotted The Nation for years, and recently concluded they're CIA, or as good as. In fact I sent them a letter in 2003 telling them of my boycott (I was briefly a subscriber) after they smeared General Clark, clearly trying to keep an "outsider" from getting power in DC. It was a loooong letter; of course they only published a short excerpt: "I read "Clark's True Colors" with an open mind, figuring that if The Nation had criticism of General Clark, it was of interest. But after reading it, I had the same opinion of Wesley Clark but a much lowered opinion of The Nation. I'm disgusted to see you using the gossipy smear tactics used by the radical right to discredit Anita Hill in the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas. Since you've demonstrated that your journalistic standards are down there with Fox "news," which I boycott, I'll boycott The Nation as well. MYRA BRONSTEIN" (I think Matt Taibbi wrote the blatant smear. Any opinion on him?) That's it. I think The Nation should be featured in John's propaganda/disinfo section. I wonder how they'll smear Wes this time. He's running...

YES! It's not just me! I've boycotted The Nation for years, and recently concluded they're CIA, or as good as. In fact I sent them a letter in 2003 telling them of my boycott (I was briefly a subscriber) after they smeared General Clark, clearly trying to keep an "outsider" from getting power in DC. It was a loooong letter; of course they only published a short excerpt: "I read "Clark's True Colors" with an open mind, figuring that if The Nation had criticism of General Clark, it was of interest. But after reading it, I had the same opinion of Wesley Clark but a much lowered opinion of The Nation. I'm disgusted to see you using the gossipy smear tactics used by the radical right to discredit Anita Hill in the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas. Since you've demonstrated that your journalistic standards are down there with Fox "news," which I boycott, I'll boycott The Nation as well. MYRA BRONSTEIN" (I think Matt Taibbi wrote the blatant smear. Any opinion on him?) That's it. I think The Nation should be featured in John's propaganda/disinfo section. I wonder how they'll smear Wes this time. He's running...

More from the book intro of "Misplaced Loyalties: The Assassinations of Marilyn Monroe & the Kennedy Brothers" by Victor E. Justice (pseudonym). More discussed at: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry80655 "President Ford had pardoned his predecessor, Richard Nixon, the man who had appointed Ford as President of the United States, for crimes he committed, or may have committed. When in history has a man received a presidential pardon for undiscovered crimes? What could Nixon have done that required such a carte blanche pardon; perhaps some assassinations? ... Prior to 1976, political assassinations were not considered illegal in America. It was not until 1976 that President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order number 11905 stating, "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination. ... Ask yourself why President Gerald Ford signed an executive order making it illegal for the United States to commit assassinations for political purposes. Think about how the Constitution contains a motive for murder, in that upon the death of the President of the United States, the vice-president ascends immediately to the presidency without the evaluative process of an election." http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/05-1804.html I haven't double checked the "facts." But of interest to me is the "fact" that Nixon was pardoned for crimes he may have committed. This is a clincher, not that I needed one. Also, given LBJ's legal problems with Baker/Estes, the VP was probably the safest place for him. Safer than being a private citizen, a VP, a Senator... again not that I needed a clincher. And, of course Ford didn't seem to have a problem with killing presidents until he was one.

I searched to see if there was discussion here about the book "Misplaced Loyalties: The Assassinations of Marilyn Monroe & the Kennedy Brothers" and/or the author Victor E. Justice. Published in 2005. I couldn't find any. And I don't know anything about the credibility of this author (using a pseudonym--could be here ). He does seem to be in the James Files Judith Baker camp. Anyway, there are some interesting excerpts from the intro on the web: "While reading Misplaced Loyalties , bear in mind that covering up the murder of John F. Kennedy represents the most elaborate, expensive, ongoing misinformation/disinformation campaign of all time. Connecting the dots is difficult, because considerable resources have been invested to prevent the truth from coming out. ... Just one example of the ongoing propaganda effort is the Sixth Floor Museum in the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, Texas. Visitors are shocked when the keepers of the sniper's nest do not acknowledge the possibility that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have fired a shot on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza. This, even though the federal government has formally announced that JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy." http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/05-1804.html There's another point of interest but it belongs in a different thread. On edit: Other thread at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8416&st=15

Ahhhh. Interesting. Nathaniel do you give that date because of the hatching of the CIA, the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, or... the birth of Dan Quayle? Another reason?