Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
Thank you for these kind comments. However, I think I should post these comments that I received this morning from Maureen Melody:
“I am very disappointed in your presentation of Bush and Blair on your website. As a long time history teacher I have used your site and have advised students to use your site for many years. i was confident of your professionalism and objectivity. I was obviously very mistaken. The purpose of a history site is to present data not to air political views. The anti-American tone is disrespectful and biased. I will no longer use this site as a reference and fully intend to point out to other people the attitudes expressed in your attacks.”
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.
-
IMO the major structural flaw in the US political system [of which there are also many lesser ones] is that, for example, if a minority of persons would like a socialist or green party person in office they can NOT get one...as there is no proprtional representation. The system even has special 'tricks' to stop all but the Democrats and Republicans from coming to office. 'Winner Take All' it is called and is unfair and based on the sports game model or War models. So minorities are, with a very few exceptions, not represented unless they join the one party state....the National Security Corporate Party, of which there are two wings IMO.
On the effect on JFK Records, remember LBJ was a Democrat and the effort to keep the real events of Dallas a secret has been a bi-partisan effort [both wings of the National Security State Party / Corporate Party]. While the Democrats are slightly more inclined to let a little more information out the operational word is slightly. Both know that full disclosure would mean an END to the one party state in the USA and a revolution, in effect - the undoing of the Coup d'etat...they can't allow that at any cost and don't count on them participating in their own suicide. The American People will have to fight for it...nothing we have won in the USA has come from the top down....only by fighting from the bottom up. There are a few [operational word = few!] decent Democrats and one very decent Socialist in Congress, but their effect against the Machine will need the People demanding.
IMO a full disclose of the events of 11/22/63 would destroy the current US Government for all time...and they know it too and they will not allow it. America as a nation and the People would survive and thrive, but the Oligarcy that runs the country, made the Coup and covered it up and owns and pulls the strings for BOTH parties on the Party level will NEVER allow the truth to come out without a battle the likes of which I do not [sadly] feel the American People are up for at this time.......sorry to sound so pessimistic. I hope I am wrong.
Only a snowballing effect [like almost got going during Watergate with the Church Report etc] coming from an impeachment of Bush and Co could start the 'ball rolling' on something like this. I'm all in favor of an impeachment and even waterboarding of the Adminsitration to get the truth of their crimes [i appove of torture only for those who advocate it].
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.
-
Today a lot of Republican candidates are probably singing a new version of an old Merle Haggard song: "The Hackers Let Me Down."
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.
-
Myra: ...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.
Hi Myra,
When Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act, it required all agencies of government to comply with the law Except Congress, exempting itself, keeping Rule 36, which requires that all Congressional Records be sealed for 50 years. When I asked an administrator at NARA why 50 years, why not 35 or 70, he said that 50 years was the amount of time it was estimated that the people mentioned in the records would be dead.
At one of the last meetings of the Warren Commission they discussed what to do with the sworn testimony, documents and exhibits that served as the basis for the Report. Allen Dulles wanted it all sealed, but some of the other Commissioners argued for its release, and Dulles relented, saying, "Go ahead and publish it, nobody will read it anyway."
When the HSCA concluded its work by issuing its Report, they too released some records as suplemental volumes, but most of the records were declared "Congressional Records" and thus sealed for 50 years. They could have released more, but intentionally didn't, with the 2nd Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey saying, "I'll rest on the judgement of histrians in 50 years."
The early lobby efforts by researchers (Committee for an Open Archive COA) targeted the HSCA records, and at first, petitions were circulated calling for the suspension of Rule 36 and the opening of all Congressional records, including the HSCA records. Just as the movie Executive Action called attention to the suspicious deaths in a trailer at the end of the movie, Stone agreed to make note of the fact that the HSCA records were sealed at the end of his movie, which sparked the public outcry to "free the files."
While every Congressman heard from their constituents wanting to know why the JFK assassination investigation records were sealed from the public for 50 years, they turned to the former Committee Chairman for the answer and Conyers took most of the heat. Instead of opening up Congressional records however, Conyers got together with Specter and a few others and took the heat off Congress by addressing the JFK Act to all government agencies and limiting it to the JFK Assassination records. This of course, kept the HSCA MLK Assassination investigation records sealed, and continued exempting Congressional records from the FOIA.
Conyers is a black caucus congressman from urban Michigan who can wheel and deal with Arlen Specter, and continue to secret the MLK and other Congressional records that should be open to the public. But if there is going to be hearings and an effort to free the remaining records, Conyers MUST support it. As the former HSCA chairman his cosponsor ship if any bill to release records is manditory for whatever happens.
With the loss of Cynthia McKinney, we lost our biggest supporter and base of operations in Congress. With the new Democratic Congress coming in, we will have to identify some new sympathetic Congressman who will cosponsor and submit legislation, support our Congressional briefings and call on committee chairman for public hearings on open records issues.
In the last Congress we had Zero chance of convincing a Committee chairman to hold oversight hearings on compliance with the JFK Act, while now its not a matter of if but when it will happen. The pressure, however, still must be applied by the public.
Conyers is a good guy, who now has the hammer, but we can't depend on him.
BK
'Kay. Well...thank you for the explanation.
-
Wasn't Hinkley also stalking Jimmy Carter with a gun. I seem to recall he was picked up at an airport Carter was due to land at.. Sorry for the paucity, but I am running on pure memory here.
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...."
-
Wasn't Hinkley also stalking Jimmy Carter with a gun. I seem to recall he was picked up at an airport Carter was due to land at.. Sorry for the paucity, but I am running on pure memory here.
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."
-
On the day Congress changed hands, I thought you might like to look at what Robert Parry said about Michael Deaver's crowd in Secrecy & Privilege (2004)
Like a Civil War victory at a major train junction, the election of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in 1980 put conservatives in control of key switching points in Washington for the transportation of ideas throughout the U.S. political system. By regaining the Executive Branch and winning the Senate, Republicans had their hands on many of the levers that could expedite the movement of favorable information to the American public and sidetrack news that might cause trouble.
Having learned how dangerous it was when critical scandals like Watergate or the CIA abuses started rolling down the tracks and building up steam, the conservatives took pains to keep hold of this advantage over what information sped through to the public and what didn't. Though often disparaged for being behind the times, conservatives - far better than liberals -grasped the strategic advantage that came with controlling these logistics of information. With the ability to rush public relations shock troops and media artillery to political battle fronts, conservatives recognized that they could alter the tactics and the strategies of what they called "the war of ideas."
Not losing any time, Republicans began devising new ways to manage, manufacture and deliver their message in the weeks and months after the Reagan-Bush victory. Some would call the concept "public diplomacy"; others would use the phrase "perception management." But the idea was to control how the public would perceive an issue, a person or an event. The concept was to define the political battlefield at key moments - especially when a story was just breaking - and thus enhance the chances of victory.
The Republican approach would be helped immeasurably by President Reagan's communication skills and by the image wizardry of White House aide Michael Deaver. But the administration's capability was given an important boost, too, by the intelligence backgrounds of two key figures, former campaign chief William Casey, who was named Reagan's CIA director, and Vice President George H. W. Bush, a former CIA director and a veteran of previous battles fought to contain political scandals. From their experiences in the intelligence fields, they understood what the CIA Old Boys, like Miles Copeland, meant when they talked about setting the "the spirit of the meeting" as a crucial element in managing political events.
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
-
Today a lot of Republican candidates are probably singing a new version of an old Merle Haggard song: "The Hackers Let Me Down."
Bingo Ron!
The neo-cons are so loathed that they couldn't steal or suppress enough votes this time.
Oh the ignominy.
-
Mr. Bush and group, recipients of the theft of the GOP by past
extremists could not fool all the people all of the time as seen
in the outcome of this election {Nov.7,06}.
Finally, the nation has an effective loyal political opposition.
More good news, Rumsfeld another wicked person has just now
resigned!
H.J. Dean, anti-Bush Republican.
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,
...
-
Deaver narrowly missed being hit during the attack on Reagan. He was walking with Jim Brady, who was hit:
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.
-
THE NEW CONGRESS & JFK RECORDS – A Quick Analysis.
While the full repercussions of the mid-term US elections have yet to shake out, we know enough to make some confident predictions, especially as to how it will affect JFK assassination research.
Under the rules of the US Congress, the Democrats will take over the role of majority party, commanding the Speaker of the House, garnering more committee appointments and most importantly, taking over committee chairmanships, assuming the powers of scheduling the House agenda, the ability to call hearings and to the power to begin investigations.
There will be hearings and there will be investigations, just as there were during and after the Watergate era, which sparked the Pike and Church Committees, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and the kind of investigative oversight we’d like to see of the Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB).
Basically, there are two types of Congressional Committee hearings – Oversight and Investigative. When things are running smoothly and all appears honky-dory, oversight hearings have responsible agency directors answer pre-prepared softball questions. Investigative committees on the other hand, use their subpoena power to compel the sworn testimony of unwilling witnesses and obtain otherwise inaccessible records that are leaked to the press, which sometimes leads to scandals and criminal investigations and always good theater.
There will be hearings and there will be investigations, though the issues leadership considers most important will take priority, and after years playing the subservient minority role, the new committee chairman no longer have to politely request the chairman hold a hearing on an important issue, now he can just do it on his own. The Democrats first fury will probably be unleashed on partisan issues ( ie. Haliburton contracts; Iraq & WMD; military prison abuses; etc.), but they’ll eventually get around to dealing with issues we are concerned with – the MLK Act, oversight and enforcement of JFK Act, destruction of records and the Emmett Till Bill.
While the first madam Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D. Calf.) makes Republicans shutter, the new committee chairman will frighten them, especially Rep. John Conyers (D. Mich.) as the new chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D. Calf.), former minority leader of the Government Reform Committee, which includes oversight of important agencies and departments.
For years Conyers had to write polite letters to the committee chairman to request hearings on special issues; now he can call hearings on his own, and he’s going to do it.
The former 3rd chairman of the HSCA (after Downing retired and Gonzalez melted), Conyers steered the contentious committee investigations of the JFK and MLK assassinations, concluding there was evidence of conspiracy in both cases, then locked away their records for 50 years.
Galvanized by Oliver Stone’s film JFK, the American public focused much of its wrath on Conyers, who recruited Arlen Spector in the Senate to draft the JFK Act to release the assassination records, as vetted by the ARRB.
Nearly fifteen years since the passage of the JFK Act, most though not all of the HSCA records have been released, but the records that remain sealed are stubbornly so, with little relief from the courts.
What needs to be done now is for a series of open Congressional Briefings be held in Congress on the narrow but significant issue of government compliance, or lack of compliance with the JFK Act, and review of the need for enforcement procedures and harsher penalties for failure to abide by the JFK Act and FIOA requests and destruction of records.
This briefing, if carried by C-SPAN and covered by mainstream media, should lead to formal Congressional hearings in the appropriate committee, that will begin as traditional oversight hearings – but could be easily diverted to an investigative committee, though what would be investigated would be limited to the records, rather than to the assassination itself.
Conyers could find reason for his Judicial Committee to hold such hearings, though more likely it will be held by the committee for oversight of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), or the Government Reform Committee, whose former minority leader Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D. Calf.) is a champion of open government. Waxman’s Committee issued the Report: Secrecy in the Bush Administration and Administration Oversight and Open Government. [see: http://reform.democrats.house.gov/story ].
When the new Congress convenes in January, the record is swept clean and all previous bills not acted on must be reintroduced, which includes both the Restore Open Records Act (RORA) of 2002 [hr 5073] and the MLK Act of 2006, and any additional bills to be considered. Once introduced, co-sponsors sign on and it is referred to a sub-committee, that can either table the bill or hold hearings and make a recommendation on it. Or a full committee could hold hearings, especially if it’s a politically charged issue and covered by CSPAN.
Some positive aspects of RORA is the restoration of the Presumption of Disclosure (informally established by the ARRB), it overturns the Ashcroft and Card Memos that encouraged agencies to ignore FOIA requests, and bolsters citizen action by re-compensating legal fees for successful cases against the government.
The most significant thing that will happen when Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act finally take place will be the taking of new testimony under oath, which will establish new evidence that we haven’t had before.
How far the Congressional hearings will go, like the Congressional hearings of the 70s, depends on how much pressure the American public puts on its newly elected officials to pursue a new and open government.
William Kelly (bkjfk3@yahoo.com)
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.
Great article Bill. Let us hope you are right and the Democrats get control over the Senate. At the moment it seems too close to call.There will be a long battle in Virginia. Possibly weeks. And Allen is clearly a dirty fighter (and all around thug).
-
Please let me have names of people who should be featured in this section of my website.
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?
-
Very very odd.
And yet no explanation for Jack's missing posts.
Dawn
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.
-
Here are some extra questions (for Gary Mack):
(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?
(2) If you believe the CIA were involved in a disinformation campaign, why do you still believe the story they pushed to Blakey and the HSCA?
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.
-
"The Smiling Secret Service Agent" , yea right. The guy shrugged his shoulders three times because everything was alright? They had more important things to do at Love Field? ( like wait for the dead President's clothes?) That "smile" by the way, looks bogus and does not match Rybka's appearance in the film. It is an absolute insult to expect us to believe this nonsensical explanation.
It is was it appears to be. The Stand Down of protection of the President of the United States, minutes before his death. It is not a theory, it is historical fact; captured on film.
It can not be explained away.
Secret Service Agent Henry Rybka, shrugging his shoulders after being called off his normal duties jogging beside, and riding behind the President.
I thought it was a real howler Peter.
Where did that "photo" come from?
-
Gary has always been very helpful to me as well. It does appear that a first email from Gary to a newbie can be rather disconcerting. Myra is a case in point. As I recall, as was recounted on this forum, the first time Shanet received an email from Gary it scared the hell out of Shanet, who had no idea who this was.
The first email I received from Gary was after a post of mine questioning the reality of Badgeman. He wanted to know my reasons. I knew who Gary was, so his email did not puzzle or disturb me, I was pleased to hear from him.
Perhaps Gary should preface a first email to a newbie with something like, "Hi, I'm Gary Mack, I work at the Sixth Floor Museum, and I've forgotten more than you'll ever know about the assassination." The newbie will then know who he or she is dealing with.
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.
-
Hi Myra, based on John Martino's observations and my own studies I would
consider Oswald to be an unwitting albeit not entirely innocent patsy.
Certainly he knew that he was in contact with "subversives" and I would
speculate that they may well have fed him a line which included some
act which would have focused attention on the US assassination attempts on
Castro. There is solid evidence that Owald had joined up to participate
in some sort of act/demonstration in the DC area in September.
However on November 22, Oswald was expecting to leave Dallas and
head out for Cuba, most likely via Mexico. Something may have been
said to him about some incident with JFK but clearly he was also
told something which kept him "off the street" for the passage of the
motorcade.
As to informing, I do think Oswald passed on a variety of information
to the FBI and may well have passed on talk against JFK in New Orleans
while he was there. There was plenty of it going on among Bannister's
crowd including Ferrie and Shaw.
In any event, I hope that works as a quick response to your question, basically
Oswald was just what he proclaimed himself to be, a "patsy" ....but certainly
not a simple patsy who was doing nothing more that day than planning
on going to work and ending up in his own room that evening.
-- Larry
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.
-
John, Have you yet found any other attempts to discredit you [that you care to mention] other than the hanky-panky with the Forum [being hacked in various ways] and the general attempts to provide trojan horse information?
...
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?
-
-
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.
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.
-
I really can't see any movement starting a moment after the President emerges from behind the freeway sign. He just looks frozen to me. And I don't think his arms/hands are clutching at throat. I think they're frozen in that bizarre position:
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/film/Zapruderstable.mov
Back to the paralyzing agent that was supposedly available to the CIA for use with flechettes, is there any evidence that it would make muscles spasm or constrict immediately prior to the paralysis?
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.
-
The website for Someone would have Talked is online and has some great documents, photos etc on there. Great stuff Larry, thanks for making it available on this site. Also congratulations to James R for the charts. Good work!
The URL is:
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
-
Myra, you need not be worried about Gary being a disinformationist. He has his own beliefs but is sincere. A year or so ago he took questions online on behalf of the Discovery Channel, and slapped down Posnerites as rapidly as he slapped down conspiracists. As the Discovery Channel has taken a decidedly LN slant, there was no way he would have done this if it wasn't an honest expression of his beliefs.
Thanks for the input Pat. Then, at best, Mack just tries to bully and belittle people into believing as he supposedly does with comments like "where do you get your bad information?" That, and the fact that he can't or won't post on forums, and his lack of evidence for his assertions, are all red flags. I'm not gonna spend time on him, or let him wind me up.
)
missing the point
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Yes. Plus the fact that if someone will murder--they'll probably lie.
I just don't see plotters as fountains of truth.