Myra Bronstein

So, clearly the Dems seemed disinterested or cowed after the murder of President Kennedy, and allowed the cover-up. Was this a change that occured in the aftermath of the assassination? Or were the Dems disinterested in being a true opposition party before 1963?

Welcome to the Forum Evan, As far as I am concerned you speak the plain, and obvious truth. We will have to figure this one out without a "deathbed confession" Regards, Steve. Yes. Plus the fact that if someone will murder--they'll probably lie. I just don't see plotters as fountains of truth.

Oh please, she obviously has completely missed the point. Typical of some people - they mistake criticism of Bush for being 'anti American' which is total rubbish. The most scary thing though is that she says she is a history teacher?! What is she teaching her students? That the government is to be respected whatever its leaders do and we the 'little' people shouldn't question? The value of his forum imo is that you can read a whole host of different viewpoints, people that agree with John and people who don't, and a whole host of differing opinions in between. How she can say that it is biased to one viewpoint is beyond me. Maybe she's still a little sore over the elections... Yes... I'm hoping this history teacher is opening her students' eyes to the real nature of "history": -"History is written by the winners." (Paraphrasing Napoleon?) -"History is written by those who have hanged heros." (Braveheart) -"The very ink in which history is written is merely fluid prejudice.”-- Mark Twain -"All the ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon." --Voltaire -"History is no place for truthiness." (Myra Bronstein with acknowledgements--but no royalties--to Stephen Colbert. ) http://www.quotegarden.com/history.html Otherwise she might as well teach a class in fiction. This forum is devoted to real history.

Totally agreed on all points. In addition, the deck was stacked against the people right at the start when the elitist electoral college system was installed to keep the riff raff (aka us) from picking the *wrong* president. That would ideally be changed, along with (more realistically) the one party--with two branches of fascists and enablers--system, in order for real change, not just superficial change like the recent election, to take place. Peter you probably know that people have tried to get referendums on ballots in some cities for "instant runoff" elections. Good idea, very poorly named (George Lakoff would cringe); it should be called "1, 2, 3 voting" or something descriptive. (Of course this is the time for Dems to change the frames on so many issues, but they've been ignoring Lakoff for years. They must not want frames changed...) Anyway, a definition from: http://www.instantrunoff.com/faq.asp: "What is instant runoff voting? Instant Runoff Voting is a system that guarantees the winning candidate has a majority of the votes (instead of a plurality) and eliminates the "wasted vote syndrome" caused by third party candidates. It allows voters to rank the candidates by preference on a single ballot (first, second, third choice, etc.), so it can simulate an "instant" runoff election if no candidate has a majority of the votes." Again, the one party won't want this (or anything like it) as you said, but the actual humanoid type people should know precisely what we want if we're gonna push for change. After that I think the top priority would be election reform to make voting safe (roll back the HAVA corruption then start actually fixing and standardizing voting) and campaign finance reform. (*Then* we can start working on real issues like health care and education and worker's rights and...oh yeah, the war machine.) And since the powers that be in the post-JFK party won't allow the overall truth to be told then it's still up to us of course. In that case one of our top priorities has to be protection of the internet. The goons in DC recognize it's the biggest best tool we have left. What is the status of the "net neutrality" bill Sir Tim was rightfully so alarmed about? Hm, I lost track. Anyway, since all past special congressional committees on the assassinations have been massive cover ups, the architecture of those committees would have to change as well for yet another one to do anything but add another layer to the cover up.

Bingo Ron! The neo-cons are so loathed that they couldn't steal or suppress enough votes this time. Oh the ignominy. I'd wait for the Virginia re-count before counting any chickens. They still have time to steal that one. As Burns has not yet conceded, it seems clear he's trying to cook up a reason to force a Montana recount as well. Montana's a done deal now, but yeah, with the VA loser unwilling to concede it's a dicey scenario. I wouldn't put anything past them with control of the senate at stake. Still, I didn't expect anything to make it past the cheating machines, so I'm rather pleased. Not satisfied, but pleased.

'Kay. Well...thank you for the explanation.

That's what it says in the link given in my previous post Stephen. But I hadn't read that far until you mentioned it. That's just fascinating... Glad you pointed it out. Also, that link suddenly seems unreachable (... ...) but the cached version is viewable: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:NCL-rI...lient=firefox-a "The day after his Nazi-seeking mission, Hinckley flew to Nashville to stalk Jimmy Carter, but was arrested at the airport when authorities discovered three handguns in his suitcase. Oddly, after only five hours in custody, this unstable character - who had attempted to transport weapons across state lines and into a city soon to be visited by the president of the United States - was fined and released without further ado. Even more oddly, the authorities apparently didn't bother to examine his journal, which in Dear Diary fashion, detailed Hinckley's plans to kill Carter. Was this a case of bumbling negligence or something more ominous? Most likely they had found a perfect fall guy, similar to Oswald, to be used in some future covert operation." More... "It took me almost 22 years to figure out who most likely authorized the assassination of John Lennon, the greatest singer songwriter and the most influential political artist of our time. I believe it could have been the CIA that manipulated the assassin of John Winston Lennon, but more likely, I believe a new army of old school CIA, which was let go under President Carter, manipulated the assassin. I believe the assassin was a mind-control experiment, like all their old tricks of MKULTRA, only much more sophisticated. I believe their old boss authorized it. The person the CIA building in Washington D.C. is named after. I believe he was the same person who tried to assassinate President Ronald Wilson Reagan on his sixty-ninth day in office -- March 30, 1981. He is the person with the most to gain from both of these assassinations. So, who authorized the assassination of John Lennon? I believe it was the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush." http://www.john-lennon.net/whoauthorizedth...fjohnlennon.htm I didn't realize Carter had canned CIA guys: "The CIA Old Boys were reeling. In the 1970s, exposure of their dirty games and dirty tricks made the Cold Warriors look sinister -- and silly. Then, President Carter ordered a housecleaning that left scores of CIA men out in the cold. " http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile7.html Then of course... "WASHINGTON -- With little more than a week left in the 1980 campaign, Republican vice presidential nominee George Bush was nervous. New polls put Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in a dead heat. Then, while going to campaign in Pittsburgh, Bush got an unsettling message from former Texas Gov. John Connally. Connally, a onetime-Democrat-turned-Republican, said the oil-rich Middle East was buzzing with rumors that President Carter had achieved his long-elusive goal of a pre-election release of 52 American hostages held in Iran. If true, Ronald Reagan's election was in trouble. So, at 2:12 p.m., Oct. 27, 1980, George Bush called Richard Allen, a senior Reagan foreign policy adviser who was keeping tabs on Carter's hostage progress. Bush ordered Allen to find out what he could about Connally's tip. Allen's notes, which I discovered many years later in an obscure Capitol Hill storage room, made clear that Bush was in charge. "Geo Bush," Allen's notes began, "JBC [Connally] -- already made deal. Israelis delivered last wk spare pts. via Amsterdam. Hostages out this wk. Moderate Arabs upset. French have given spares to Iraq and know of JC [Carter] deal w/Iran. JBC [Connally] unsure what we should do. RVA [Allen] to act if true or not." In a still "secret" 1992 deposition to House investigators, Allen explained the cryptic notes as meaning Connally had heard that President Carter had ransomed the hostages' freedom with an Israeli shipment of military spare parts to Iran. Allen said Bush then instructed him to query Connally, who was in Houston, and to pass on any new details to two of Bush's closest personal aides...." http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile7.html

That's what it says in the link given in my previous post Stephen. But I hadn't read that far until you mentioned it. That's just fascinating... Glad you pointed it out. Also, that link suddenly seems unreachable (... ...) but the cached version is viewable: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:NCL-rI...lient=firefox-a "The day after his Nazi-seeking mission, Hinckley flew to Nashville to stalk Jimmy Carter, but was arrested at the airport when authorities discovered three handguns in his suitcase. Oddly, after only five hours in custody, this unstable character - who had attempted to transport weapons across state lines and into a city soon to be visited by the president of the United States - was fined and released without further ado. Even more oddly, the authorities apparently didn't bother to examine his journal, which in Dear Diary fashion, detailed Hinckley's plans to kill Carter. Was this a case of bumbling negligence or something more ominous? Most likely they had found a perfect fall guy, similar to Oswald, to be used in some future covert operation."

And (almost) speaking of the Iran Contra crimes, I'm reading up on the supposed replacement for disgraced and dumped warmonger Rummy as Sect of Defence--Robert Gates. He seems to have been a key figure in the Iran-Contra Scandal... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates This administration really likes to recycle their thugs. Then there are those who think it's not a coincidence that John Lennon, world famous anti-war activist, was murdered just as the Reagan/Bush warmongers were fixin' to come to power in 1980. http://www.john-lennon.net/whoauthorizedth...fjohnlennon.htm

Bingo Ron! The neo-cons are so loathed that they couldn't steal or suppress enough votes this time. Oh the ignominy.

I guess the margin of victory was so huge in this election that not even the usual massive vote fraud could bail out the fascists. Sweet. I think today should be all about celebration, then to WORK. Lessee, Dear Speaker Pelosi, An associate of mine asked a fine question today, and I want to pose it to you: "Will there be any war crimes trials?" RSVP. Thank you Madam Speaker. Very sincerely, ...

It is obviously a coincidence but there are parallels with the JFK assassination. Bush was Reagan’s main competitor for the Republican nomination. Bush received strong support from the CIA. According to Chi Chi Quintero, Bush had weekly strategy meetings with CIA's top officials. Ted Shackley, who was going to be appointed director of the CIA if Bush won, wrote some of his campaign speeches. Reagan was seen as too inexperienced and unreliable (similar to the way the CIA saw JFK). However, Reagan had the charm and with Deaver managing his campaign, and the military dictatorships of Argentina and Guatemala providing the funds, Reagan won the nomination. Bush, like JFK, was then pressurized into taking the CIA candidate as his vice-president. William Casey, another CIA insider, became his presidential campaign manager. Reagan became president but then suffers an assassination attempt. Unlike in the JFK case, Reagan survives. However, he gets the message and Reagan willingly carries out the CIA’s foreign policy and Bush has to wait 8 more years to become president. I assume you're aware of this Hinkley/Bush connection John: "What is more dangerous for the future of our country than a conspiracy to assassinate a president? It is a conspiracy to manipulate and control what the American people are told by the national news media. There are scores of unanswered questions surrounding the event of the afternoon of March 30, 1981. For instance, John Chancellor, eyebrows raised, informed the viewers of NBC Nightly News that the brother of the man who tried to kill the president was acquainted with the son of the man who would have become president if the attack had been successful. As a matter of fact, Chancellor said in a bewildered tone, Scott Hinckley and Neil Bush had been scheduled to have dinner together at the home of the vice president's son the very next night. And, of course, the engagement had been canceled. . . Then a peculiar thing happened: The story vanished. To this day, it has never been reported in the New York Times, Washington Post or many other metropolitan newspapers, never again mentioned by any of the television news networks, and never noted in news magazines except for a brief mention in Newsweek, which lumped it with two ludicrous conspiracy scenarios as if the Bush-Hinckley connection didn't deserve some sort of explanation." http://www.geocities.com/Northstarzone/HINCKLEY.html Hinkley is considered a possible "Manchurian candidate" MKUltra type programmed assassin. Like Sirhan.

Great post William, very detailed. Conyers, IMO, is one of the few pols who has some backbone and integrity. Just the right man for the Judiciary Committee. (Waxman is also better than average.) Intriguing possibilities... Could you please elaborate on the statement that "Conyers steered the contentious committee investigations of the JFK and MLK assassinations,...then locked away their records for 50 years." Rep Conyers alone didn't have the power to unilaterally decide to lock away the records did he? How was that decision arrived at? It sorta sounds like he was one of those hiding the truth, but I just don't think he's that kind of pol. Am I misinterpreting that? Obviously if he was the one to lock records away and he's someone who could help get them released, that'd be dicey. Thanks. There will be a long battle in Virginia. Possibly weeks. And Allen is clearly a dirty fighter (and all around thug).

Here are some possibilities for propaganda and disinformation names: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -George Orwell (for obvious reasons) -Machiavelli (The Prince) -Edward L. Bernays (the father of public relations according to Wiki) -Ivy Ledbetter Lee (founder of modern PR per Wiki) -Joseph Goebbels (Hitler's propaganda minister) -Hermann Goering (Hitler's 2nd in command), Nuremberg trials quotes: "Of course the people don't want war...it's always a simple matter to drag the people along... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -David Atlee Phillips (CIA propaganda specialist) -E. Howard Hunt (Bay of Pigs propaganda honcho) -Frank Church (for investigating Operatio Mockingbird) -Many Operation Mockingbird people: * CBS (William S. Paley) * Chattanooga Times (Charles Bartlett) * Christian Science Monitor (Joseph Harrison) * Copley News Services (James Copley) * Louisville Courier-Journal (Barry Bingham, Sr.) * The Miami News (William C. Baggs, Herb Gold, Hal Hendrix) * Newsweek (Ben Bradlee) * New York Herald Tribune (Stewart Alsop) * New York Times (Arthur Hays Sulzberger) * Time Magazine (Alfred Friendly, Charles Douglas Jackson, Henry Luce) * Washington Post (Walter Pincus) * Washington Star (Jerry O'Leary) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird) *Walter Cronkite (the most trusted man in america) -Jack Valenti (Agency was in charge of the press during the November 1963 visit of President John F. Kennedy and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson to Dallas, Texas. Following the assassination of President Kennedy, Valenti was present in the famous photograph of Lyndon Johnson's swearing in aboard Air Force One. He then became the first "special assistant" to Lyndon Johnson's White House. Valenti was so loyal to Lyndon Johnson, that it was once said of him "If LBJ dropped the H-bomb, Valenti would call it an urban renewal project." Per Wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valente) -Karl Rove (for obvious reasons) -Hill & Knowlton (PR firm who prepped the US for first Iraq invasion with infamous incubator baby lie) -John McAdams (for obvious reasons) -Ken Rahn (who you mentioned but I don't know) -George Lakoff (expert on "framing") -Everyone at Fox news, including: *Bill O'Reilly (Fox thug) *Joe Scarborough (Fox thug) -Stephen Colbert (the parody O'Reilly) -Rush Limbagh (and other right wing yappers) -Pat Robertson (propaganda cloaked as faith) -Roger Ailes (who you mentioned, Faux "news"--Fairly Unbalanced) -Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox "news") -David Mamet (co-wrote "Wag the Dog" movie parody of US event management propaganda) -Noam Chomsky (MIT professor, co-author with Noam Chomsky of Manufacturing Consent) -Edward S. Herman (media analyst and co-author with Noam Chomsky of "Manufacturing Consent") -Gerald Posner (no introduction needed) These are done: George Orwell Joseph Goebbels Hermann Goering David Atlee Phillips E. Howard Hunt Frank Church Hal Hendrix William S. Paley Ben Bradlee Stewart Alsop Arthur Hays Sulzberger Henry Luce Walter Cronkite John McAdams Ken Rahn Roger Ailes Gerald Posner These need to be done: Edward L. Bernays Ivy Ledbetter Lee (very important figure) Charles Bartlett Joseph Harrison James Copley Barry Bingham, Sr. William C. Baggs Herb Gold Alfred Friendly Charles Douglas Jackson Walter Pincus Jerry O'Leary Jack Valenti Karl Rove George Lakoff Bill O'Reilly Joe Scarborough Stephen Colbert Rush Limbagh Pat Robertson Roger Ailes Rupert Murdoch David Mamet Noam Chomsky Edward S. Herman Wow, where do you find the time John? Is Roger Ailes the only bio that'll be viewable for a while?

conspiracy Does that mean you won't be looking into it Andy? Hey, it could be my posts that disappear next time. Can't have that.

The Education Forum is indeed fortunate to have a moderator of the calibre of John Simkin. Due in large part to John's efforts, this part of the Forum has attracted many intelligent individuals - researchers, authors and truth-seekers. John has an encyclopedic knowledge of an incredibly wide variety of subjects. In addition, he demonstrates an enquiring and open mind, as evidenced in virtually all of his posts. Is John always right? Probably not. Is he ever mistaken? I suppose the answer is yes. But he remains one of the most intelligent and informed and level-headed individuals I have ever encountered anywhere. I tip my hat to John for his involvement and his efforts. John Simkin does not need my flattery or praise. His work speaks for itself. However, as I have in the past, I just want to thank John for the way he conducts himself here. I want to thank him for all the information he shares, and for all I have learned from him. To me, John fits the description of an Educator. But more importantly, he fits the description of a man that would make a trusted friend and an invaluable ally. Not to be a ditto head...much, but Michael said it perfectly so... ditto.

I thought it was a real howler Peter. Where did that "photo" come from?

That would be a better approach. I had no idea who he was when he first emailed, so I googled and came up with a few threads about him that made me suspicious. Then when I saw the exchange on Wim's site I decided to ask questions confirming who he was, and he was rather snide in return. ("Anyone who knows me..." Well, clearly I didn't know him.) In addition to that, he needed some evidence to back up his claims. Why would I believe a total stranger skulking around the periphery of forums? And bottom line is he couldn't show me proof. Then he continued his belittling tone in that other email and I was done. If you've been treated better I suppose you're lucky, or have a closer relationship with him.

Thanks very much Larry. I can't wait to read the book. (I thought I had it ordered but it turns out it was an update to an earlier edition. Well, twas the library so no harm done. Guess this is one I'll have to buy.

... I believe you have to be very careful about what you write. You only have to read John McAdams’ site to see who they pick on. As I said on another thread, I think Joan Mellan was discredited by being fed the Angelo Murgado story. I also think that the Juan Almeida story is an attempt to discredit Lamar Waldron. ... Which makes it even curiouser that we are told to give our real names on this forum. (And on other JFK forums, not just this one.) I know the stated goal is to make discourse more civilized, but I think it's unavoidable that people also feel exposed. People frequently talk about threats received, yet members are told to use real names. Hm. I've never been told I have to use my real name in any other forum over the years. I can understand if people wonder about the mandatory exposure in the very forums that have the most genuine cause for concern.

"John Dean summed it up when he said to Richard Nixon as recorded on the White House tapes in 1973: "If Teddy knew the bear trap he was walking into at Chappaquiddick. . . ."" http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp7.html http://www.geocities.com/zzzpeace/nixon.htm I take this to mean Ted drove into a trap to frame him. How else could this be taken? (I'm really asking.) And given the context, with two of his brothers murdered, I see no reason to doubt that Ted Kennedy was framed. And what about the airplane crash a few years earlier in which Ted was the only survivor, and was seriously injured?

Dupe.

The better image I see the more it seems to me he's violently gagging or choking, doing that forward-motion thing people do when they get sick or get something stuck in their throat. Oh absolutely. I totally agree there.

Look here for movement starting a moment after the President emerges from behind the freeway sign. He's not frozen. He's not clutching at his throat either. He is indeed moving forward. Oh I see what you mean Mark. Hm, it sort of looks like it's his initial reaction to being shot in the throat. In other words I only see one-time movement wherein his arms jerk into that weird position and his chin tilts. Then he looks frozen.

Hi Larry. I'm really glad to see you here. I've ordered your book but I haven't read it yet. And I have a question that is driving me crazy. Tho' I understand if you don't have time to answer all of the ones that come your way. Question: 1-Do you think that Mr. Oswald was a complicit patsy (thinking that he was part of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy) or an innocent/hero patsy (thinking he was trying to infiltrate and thwart the plot to assassinate President Kennedy)? Thank you. Myra