Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
I just read the article "The Umbrella System: Prelude to an Assassination" by Richard E. Sprague and Robert Cutler:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.txt
In the article they say that JFK was hit in the neck by TUM's flechette at Z-189. I was curious to find out how long of a shot that was, so I pulled up Don Roberdeau's map of Dealy Plaza
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
and then by using Don's scale and my tape-measure, I calculated the distance from TUM to JFK at Z-189 to be around 70-75 feet.
Since the umbrella weapon was designed to be aimed simply by looking down the "barrel" (or whatever it's called) towards the target, I'm wondering how likely it is that JFK was hit so accurately from this distance.
Comments?
--Thomas
______________________________________
Cutler and Sprague got all their UMBRELLA FLECHETTE information
from Fletcher Prouty. I talked at length to Fletch about this and he
was personally aware of the weapon, and that the CIA had several
of them. I was dubious about the accuracy and aiming capability of
such a weapon. He said the flechette system was incorporated into many
different forms. It was developed during the Korean war to disable
sentries and guard dogs silently. He assured me that the agency
would NOT MANUFACTURE SUCH WEAPONS UNLESS THEY HAD BEEN
EXTENSIVELY TESTED FOR ACCURACY. The Church Committee
discovered that the CIA did have flechette weapons.
Fletch knew what he was talking about. But I still prefer to think that
the umbrella was used as a signalling device.
However, we have the disturbing Siebert-Oneil receipt which says
"a MISSILE was removed from the body". Hmmmmmm.
Jack
Oh, that's a good piece of evidence. Thank you. I'm just now reading Best Evidence but I'm not to the throad wound chapter yet. (I'm skipping around.) I assume he'll mention that.
And Prouty is the reason why I was even willing to consider the umbrella flechette as a possibility. I think he has pretty good credibility, or at least better than most of the people in the Kennedy orbit at that time.
Then once I started looking into it, I thought it was a good possibilty. Still not decided but not ruling it out.
-
"he is worried
"bad things"
radical
concerned
things ... very bad.
"Certain undemocratic things...
things that we think is really important,"
wanted to attract researchers
a new science
newer
more exciting
even better
The project will examine how we access this information and assess its reliability.
sounds like Sir Tim would get excited over new ways of controlling these bad things he so worries about? I wonder what they really are, these certain very bad things?
You can get that information right from the man himself John. Sir Tim has a website and blog that he keeps very current. Net neutrality is an issue he's quite concerned about, and he explains why he's concerned:
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/blog/4, "Net Neutrality: This is serious."
An excerpt:
"...There have been suggestions that we don't need legislation because we haven't had it. These are nonsense, because in fact we have had net neutrality in the past -- it is only recently that real explicit threats have occurred.
Control of information is hugely powerful. In the US, the threat is that companies control what I can access for commercial reasons. (In China, control is by the government for political reasons.) There is a very strong short-term incentive for a company to grab control of TV distribution over the Internet even though it is against the long-term interests of the industry.
Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it.
Let's see whether the United States is capable as acting according to its important values, or whether it is, as so many people are saying, run by the misguided short-term interested of large corporations.
I hope that Congress can protect net neutrality, so I can continue to innovate in the internet space. I want to see the explosion of innovations happening out there on the Web, so diverse and so exciting, continue unabated."
-
Z189 is too early. Willis 5 (showing Black Dog Man) was taken around Z202, and JFK had apparently still not been hit.
If JFK was hit with a fletchette (and his behavior, the nature of the wound, absence of a bullet, availability of the weapon, and the presence of the umbrella constitute compelling evidence - I hate coincidences, especially compound ones), it was just as he was going behind the Stemmons Sign in the Z film.
JFK's grabbing his neck and the 'pencil size' neck wound 'of entry' [with much attempt to make it 'disappear'] all seem to point to the possibility IMO of a fleshette, but I think it could have come from a gun, rather than an 'umbrella'. TUM was considerably to JFK's right and the wound was apparently from more head-on of JFK. A curare-like agent would be just right for setting up the death blow.
Interesting. I was beginning to think I was the only one who saw a lot of merit in the flechette scenario.
And Peter, I've watched Zapruder about a zillion times specifically to watch UM's antics, in conjunction with DCM, and the President's reaction. And I don't think that the President is clutching at his neck; he looks paralyzed, frozen. His hands are not up at his throat, they're just jutted out at an odd angle as if he was stopped in mid-motion.
I know he had a back brace, which limited his range of motion somewhat, but he's more than just limited. Notice how everybody discribes his expression as "blank"? Yeah he'd be stunned if he was shot, but he doesn't move at all until the final shot(s). It just seems like his body, and his face, are paralyzed. I'm not totally convinced, but I think it's a viable theory.
I can't find information on the range of a disolving flechette though.
-
Over the last few months I have been convinced that this is the most important subject of all. It is therefore necessary to communicate this to as many people as possible.
...
I agree. The propaganda concerns me as much as the murder. Few will even hear about the murder because of the propaganda. As we've seen with JFK.
I think the concept of "framing" is as important as the act of planting stories with "friendly" sources. Obviously it helps the fascists to have their own propaganda outlet, i.e., Fox "News." But once they have the outlets and friendly sources the decision makers control how the sources say things. It's very standardized, very controlled, very effective. And what we call "framing" Orwell called "doublespeak."
Framing and repetition framing and repetition... How many times have Amercans heard "war on terror Iraq war on terror Iraq? They don't have a damn thing to do with each other, but thru' constant chanting of war on terror and Iraq in the same breath, many Americans think they're related.
George Lakoff, the Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, is the best source I'm aware of on framing. Not only does he alert us to the ways the bad guys frame (memo to Fox: "we're not calling it 'intelligent design' instead of 'creation'--who can disagree with a term like "*intelligent* design"?), but he tells us how to reframe. So he goes beyond showing us one more thing to fret about all helplessly; he shows us how to utilize framing in our discourse. It takes a lot of discipline, which the neo-cons have. They've got it down to a science.
Lakoff has written many books on the subject, and has a website: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/people/lakoff. He's a very good teacher/lecturer.
I don't know if framing was distinct discipline within Operation Mockingbird, but I would think it was. It's too effective to overlook. It's certainly used excessively now. I think pert near every concept that reaches our ears from the rabid right is manufactured in a think tank.
-
-
Tosh,
I appreciate the fact that you are on this forum to share what you can, and that there are limits to that.
I have two questions that should allow for your necessary discretion, and is something I would really like your input on.
-What did you think of President Kennedy prior to Nov 22, 1963?
-What do you think of him now, in retrospect?
Thank you.
Myra
___________________________________________
Dear Myra,
Do you think William Plumlee willingly and knowingly participated in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK?
Sincerely, Thomas
(edited to correct typos in the interest of reducing confusion and, at the same time, dispense a healthy dose of overall comfort and security to those would in all probability feel an overwhelming sense of guilt, paranoia, persecution, insecurity, and/or shame for not being able to understand and/or "deal with" the post in an unedited/uncorrected form)
___________________________________________
I don't know Thomas. I think, as Terry said, there was a "need to know" system that insulated individuals, each of whom only had part of the picture. That makes sense with an agency of spooks. So it's possible that he wasn't knowingly an accessory during the fact.
I do know that the CIA could not overthrow elected leaders, foreign and domestic, without a propaganda component. I know we've been lied to for 50 years about their activities, and more relevant to this forum, about their bloody 1963 coup. And the propaganda is still going strong; we're treated to a steady stream of books insisting LHO/the mafia/Castro dunnit alone, and McAdams rules google. So when I read WP's statements in conjunction with his posts, and they seem incredible in the ways I've already described, I lean towards believing it's conscious disinformation. I've also given my opinion on how I think disinformation has led us down the road to fascism. (It's so bizarre when people say "on the brink of fascism;" we were there decades ago.) Secrecy is the enabler of fascism.
A better way of saying it is:
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
...
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. " --President Kennedy, April 27, 1961
What's especially interesting about this speech is that the President was struggling to reconcile the need for circumspection for the sake of national security (second paragraph), with his total rejection of national security as an excuse for secrecy. He clearly knows that secrecy can undermine a democracy. And in the second paragraph he's probably talking about the cold war, but could just as easily be describing the CIA. What he warned us about did, in fact, come to pass.
So I definitely don't appreciate the WP mindset that the CIA and it's agents protect us dumb rubes from the scary facts. That it's the stern daddy who knows best and we mustn't bother our feeble little heads with reality now run along. Bullxxxx. It's this very contempt for people who want to go to the voting booth and hire representatives and have some godamn idea what those representatives are doing, and even dare to demand some voice in the direction of our government policy, that makes the CIA so...repugnant. Even if they had good motives, this covert hijacking of our government would be unacceptable. But the good motives were also lacking, as we can see from the carnage in Dallas.
WP's mindset, expressed in post #21, seems to be an endorsement of the CIA abuses that got us where we are in the guise of national security. Clearly his definition of freedom is not my definition of freedom. I'm sorry I can't be more succinct in expressing this, but I think the patronizing platitudes about protecting us from ourselves are really alarming. If WP was one of the more decent operatives, and he may well have been, imagine how fanatical that environment must have been.
So back to the issue of actual culpability for President Kennedy's murder, I doubt he was a knowing accomplice. But at some point he had to know or suspect and likely be an accessory after the fact. I think he must have known that in general he was doing illegal things even if they were for a gov't agency (just following orders...). As I said I do think the business of the CIA was murder (often on behalf of businesses) and propaganda. I doubt it was possible to work for them for long without getting bloody.
-
"I see dumb people...They post here."
Really Tosh? Post number 22 in this very thread was a dupe from you.
Maybe you just don't want to fall out of touch with me. If that's the case then it's no problem. I have some ideas on topics we can cover.
Unless an open discussion is too overt for you and you'd rather be a thread xxxxx. After all your work history indicates a strong preference for covert ops.
____________________________________
Dear Myra,
What makes you think Mr. Plumlee is suggesting you are dumb just because you made a duplicate post?
(Nearly all of us do that from time to time.)
Sincerely, Thomas
___________________________________
Hi Thomas,
See the end of post #36, after I labeled my dupe post:
"I see dumb people...
...they're everywhere
...they walk around like everyone else...
...they don't even know that they're dumb...
And...
Some of them...
...THEY POST HERE"
Hey Terry, how long have you been aware of the the kind of stuff we're talking about on this forum?
Was it a gradual realization or a sudden bombshell associated with an event?
Thx.
-
George H. W. Bush might not have been involved in the assassination of JFK but he was someone who was involved in a great number of illegal acts. I have therefore decided to start up a new section on my website entitled "the Crimes of George H. W. Bush":
Oh, excellent. I would really like to see HW Bush get the attention he so deserves. I'll go to that page and see what percentage of his enemies died at a young age.
-
Ohmygod. I guess when they really want someone protected, they protect.
And I really don't know much about him or his relationship with the US or the coup that brought him to power. In fact all I know of him is...what he said on the Daily Show recently.
He was flogging his book "In the Line of Fire" in which he says the US threatened to bomb his country into the stone age if he didn't cooperate in the invasion of Afganistan.Whatever, he got out of Dallas alive. So they couldn't hate him too much.
Upon exiting the hotel, why did they make Reagan walk 25 or 30 feet, getting him into the range of Hinckley around the corner, instead of parking the limo right outside the door like they were supposed to?Well, that seems like a good question. Hm, so George HW may have infiltrated this SS too in his first attempt to ascend to the throne. Boy don't get between him and something he wants.
Still, at least one SS member supposedly pushed him in a car (not visible on this video) and got him to the hospital quickly. Maybe it was the Clint Hill of the group.
-
Excellent post, Myra.
Thank you Terry.
But, remember that those people associated with Langley, be they agents, assets, covert, and otherwise, will often cite "compartmentalization," "cut-outs," "dual or multiple identities," and the basis of "Need to know." under which all plans, productions, operations are umbrella'ed. It's claimed that such protocol ensures one unit, or cell's liability against the failure of another, and vice versa. Although, more often than not, it appears to be exactly what you've stated above:
"Well, that's largely due to the CIA too. They've spread so much propaganda and muddied so many facts to insure people stay befuddled, and made people so paranoid...or is it paranoia if someone's really out to get you? Through the looking glass. And does it matter if we're being lied to still? It does to me. They do wear us down with disinfo. Gaeton Fonzi describes how much time and energy he's wasted on disinfo. Most of us aren't doing the level of investigation that Fonzi did, but the BS and covert crap still takes a toll."
Doug Horn is another hero, who worked against all odds, as well.
I'll have to do a search on him.
"The murder of President Kennedy is horribly emotional for me, and no doubt for many here. That's why I thanked WP early on for his answers, and said it was difficult and emotional. Not only did we get robbed of a man who had evolved into a damn good president, who put people over profits, but the country devolved -- from that point on -- into the fascist hell hole we're in today. The clans and people who are now imitating the WW2 nazis and ruling the US, are the same clans and people who killed JFK. I fukin' hate the CIA for murdering him. While I care much more about the people planned things, obviously they (CIA, funders, LBJ, Nixon) couldn't carry out their plans without foot soldiers willing to take money for murder. They couldn't do it without foot soldiers willing to take money to spread propaganda and cover up the crimes. And while the planners are worse than the foot soldiers to me, that's just a relative thing. They're all plenty bad."
But, the level of intensity in your thankfulness bordered on seeming overly patronizing.
Ok, I gotta take issue here. I post the 'thank you, only answer questions if you want to' (paraphrase) post and immediately get thumped on for badgering a witness and hints that I'm a xxxxx. And now the exact same post is seen by one of the same people as overthankful and patronizing? Do you see why I'm confused?
Regardless, as you may now have gathered, I'm pretty straightforward.
I'm not sure what your age is here, but I would venture to guess it as being younger than those of us "more jaded types" who were already into adulthood, or on the threshold of it, on 11-22-63.
One of my earliest memories is sitting on my mom's lap as she watched the assassination aftermath on TV and sobbed.
The passion and indignation you express, as well as your astute awareness of the connection between this coup d'etat with the present socio-economic and political debacle gripping this country today, are more than commendable, to say the least. Too bad we aren't allowed to take this into the schools today, and educate the children in understanding the gravity of the situation they'll be facing. They are our only key to turning this thing around and possibly helping the human race evolve beyond the mindset of the last two hundred years.
Thank you. I'm still kind of blown away by that Amazon post from the European person saying they learned the truth about JFK's murder in school. I used to know vaguely that 'Mercans were naive, but I thought we were naive about relatively harmless things. Not about total nightmare immersion stuff.
I try to do the best I can, and in my own way, by sharing my library with those who appear cognizant and open to alternative questions, answers, and the free exchange of ideas. But, it's been a slow and tedious process due to the mass indoctrination of the public by the commercial media machine presently in place [Operation Mockingbird]. Most of the time I feel as if I'm pissing into the wind. Parents have become overly suspicious of all adults, regardless of whether you're a blood relative, or a friend. Children are discouraged from forming any kind of mentoring bond with an adult for fear of pedophilia. Although, I would venture to guess that most of the perpetrators of these acts might still be institutionalized in those facilities, had they not been forced to close under Reagan's Voo Doo, aka Supply-Side Economics programs of the 80's. It's really unfortunate that today's parents may never be afforded the peace of mind our parents, and we as children, once had now that they're allowed to be housed in "half-way homes" across the street from public schools, or down the block in our own neighborhoods. The world has become a far more dangerous, as well as, closed-minded place in which to navigate.
Well the dark forces have done an masterful job of labeling anyone with functioning eyeballs a "conspiracy theorist." Even people who believe as I believe will recoil at the word "conspiracy." ("So you agree that there was a coordinated plan to [do x]"? "Yes yes." "Then it was a conspiracy"? "NOOOooooo, not a conspiracy!") That CT smear has inocculated a lot of people from the truth.
Hey, speaking of dark forces, did you hear that Rep Charlie Rangel called Darth Cheney an "Sonuva Bitch"? So it's not all bad.
As far as LBJ and Nixon? LBJ was considered to be a country bumpkin and a buffoon, as far as the Establishment was concerned [forget about Texas], as well as a political risk, not only to JFK's second campaign for the presidency, but for what the connotations of his associations with Billy Sol Estes, and Bobby Baker could mean to his political standing in the Senate, alone. JFK, or no JFK. The only feather in an otherwise tattered ten-gallon hat, was LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Bill.
You mean the ruling elite who installed LBJ realized he was a buffoon? Can you recommend a source for info like that? Not that I wan't to spend too much time on the thug 'cause he makes my skin crawl. I'm watching videos of President Kennedy to put flesh on his bones, and in so many cases one of his murderers was sitting right behind him smirking.
When you say "only feather," you mean from the perspective of John and Jane Q. Citizen? I can't imagine that the nazi power elite would have considered that a feather.
But now that you mention civil rights, I've been trying to figure out how much JFK evolved in that direction, and if LBJ snagged some of JFK's plans for civil rights. I've heard that but I really don't know.
I do know that JFK seemed to evolve hugely in his 1000 days as President, from a rich boy whose daddy helped him into the White House, to a man who stood up for the people at the risk of infuriating the CIA and mobsters, the war profiteers, the federal reserve. He knew to an extent what he was risking. He planted the warning in a newspaper (NY Times or Wa Post?) a couple of weeks before his murder that if there's ever a coup it'd be from the CIA. (Uh, this is one of many reasons I know it was the CIA; the victim told me.)
Anyway, but I think he was fairly callow early on in regards to civil rights. For example, in the book Mark Lane and Dick Gregory wrote about Reverend King's murder, Gregory describes how JFK called him personally--and stayed up all night waiting for his return call--to ask him not to march with Dr King. Not very admirable or progressive eh? But I get the impression he evolved on this subject too. I just don't have any, you know, *details*.
As for Nixon, he was thought of as a Quaker, and would never garner the respect of the Establishment Elite, nor be able to claw or climb his way up their ladder of success. Wrong blood type, not BLUE enough, not polished enough, not rich enough. His only redeeming qualities were Roe vs Wade, and for opening up dialogue with China, all overshadowed by Watergate.
Too bad Reagan's regime couldn't have been as publicly ostracized for Iran-Contragate, a far more insidious fiasco than Watergate, IMHO.
Iran-Contra was huge, and should have made the US throw the proverbial bums out.
However, I think Watergate was monsterously huge since it was largely about covering up Nixon's role in President Kennedy's murder. Of course that part was cloaked, hidden behind closed doors and doubletalk. But Nixon would never have put his tail between his legs and skulked out of the White House unless it was way bigger than a burglery at Democratic HQ and even bigger than breaking into Ellsberg's psych's office. I would like to think there's a hell, if for no other reason than to toast Nixon and Johnson for their roles in JFK's murder.
-
Lucky Reagan (except for the unlucky part):
-
I like to watch video of President Kennedy speaking so he's not just some dehumanized dead guy. But I have a lot of trouble finding video. Audio is much easier. Either way, as I find links to the President I'll add them here.
Video:
======
-YouTube (Audio if often out of synch with video):
------------------------------------------------------------------
First couple of minutes of JFK's inaugural address from January 1961.
Vintage tape - JFK and US values/Audience Q&A with Senator Kennedy
(Short)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNhMfBLBDGg
Income Tax Cut. JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/08/13 (1962)
"John F. Kennedy speaks on his income tax cut that he wants to present to Congress in January next year (partial newsreel)."
(Short)
We Choose to Go to the Moon
(Short)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oTEMY2tRmM...ted&search=
JFK moon project
(Short)
"The Telstar launch on July 10, 1961 marked the start of the global satellite communications era. Built by Bell Telephone Laboratories with funding from AT&T and a helping hand - read launch vehicle - from NASA, this 34 inch sphere allowed television pictures to travel live across the Atlantic. US President John F. Kennedy is shown at a press conference a year later being broadcast to Europe."
(Short)
Marylin singing for JFK famous: "Happy birthday, Mr. President"
(Short)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYfoj4IGrr4...ted&search=
JFK vs Bush
(Short)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_Jb0eg60f8
JFK on Rossmore Ave, Hollywood. RFK Hospital L.A.
"This is the location which JFK stayed in 1960. It is the 500 block of Rossmore (either 522 or 533) in Hollywood. JFK stayed in this apartment in July, 1960- during the Democratic Convention at the Sports Arena and then the Coliseum.. Retracing the steps. Also went to the Hospital of the Good Samaritan entrance, the Hospital RFK died at. This was 2001"
(Short)
-The American Presidency Project (Video doesn't download well for me):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John F. Kennedy: Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union
January 14th, 1963
(Very short)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.p...38&admin=35
John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address
January 20th, 1961
(Seems to be the whole thing)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.p...32&admin=35
John F. Kennedy: Remarks Aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise After Observing Naval Maneuvers
April 14th, 1962
(Medium length)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.p...08&admin=35
John F. Kennedy: The President's News Conference of
July 23rd, 1962
(Length?)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.p...84&admin=35
John F. Kennedy: Radio and Television Report to the American People on the State of the National Economy.
August 13th, 1962
(Length?)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.p...12&admin=35
John F. Kennedy: Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union.
January 14th, 1963
(Short)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.p...38&admin=35
John F. Kennedy: The President's News Conference of
November 14th, 1963
(Length?)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.p...19&admin=35
Audio:
====
TBS, but the JFK library online has a lot
-
"I see dumb people...They post here."
Really Tosh? Post number 22 in this very thread was a dupe from you.
Maybe you just don't want to fall out of touch with me. If that's the case then it's no problem. I have some ideas on topics we can cover.
Unless an open discussion is too overt for you and you'd rather be a thread xxxxx. After all your work history indicates a strong preference for covert ops.
**************************************************************************
"Unless an open discussion is too overt for you and you'd rather be a thread xxxxx. After all your work history indicates a strong preference for covert ops."
You know, Myra. I was once like you were, and threw a rant at Bill over at Lancer about 2 years ago, before realizing how misplaced my anger actually was. There's no axe to grind here, really.
It's too bad Hemming no longer frequents this site because IMO, he's more than likely the only one still alive and lucent enough to remember everything he was assigned to do, or commit, though he'll never cop to it.
Why not spend your energy going after manipulators and facillitators higher up on the ladder of success, like Felix Rodriguez, or John Hull, and/or those higher profile Iran-Contra operatives, such as that lying sack of xxxx, Singlaub, for example, who bald-face lied his way through those televised hearings, along with that son-of-a-bitch gofer of his, Ollie North.
I believe "covert ops" circa the 70's and 80's were more geared up to drug-running and arms trafficking. I also believe, and I speculate here, that assassinations of heads-of-state were, and are, carried out under the auspices of the "Felix Rodriguez" caliber of covert officer. I could be dead wrong, but IMO, the taking out of high profile officials seems to warrant the expertise of a higher ranking officer. But, again, I speculate here.
I just don't think Bill is the trained, cold-blooded killer you would like to make him out to be. But, that's just MHO.
Well you make a lot of good points Terry and it's good that we're discussing this.
I'll try to answer. For one thing, I was done with the subject in post #23. Then when William Plumlee (WP) posted #36 calling me dumb for accidently posting a dupe, I felt that was a pretty silly post and replied with a post that said, in essence, instead of hiding and firing spitballs how about being up front. But pouncing on a dupe post to call someone dumb. C'mon.
However I think you're asking about the bigger picture of why I confronted him. Ok, so I come into the forum and there's a self-professed CIA guy. I think 'how odd, I thought CIA folks hated/killed Kennedy.' But I realize he's an individual and that this is a rare opportunity to actually ask questions, which he seems open to. So I start reading around on the web and quickly find that statement where he discribes his flight on the day President Kennedy was killed. It's a pretty strange story, and the obvious questions arise, like: Could this really have been an abort mission when the CIA/Cuban exiles supposedly hated the President for the bay of pigs thing agreeing not to invade Cuba? Could this really have been an abort mission when someone widely thought to be one of the shooters, Roselli, was being transported from attempted assassination city to ultimate assassination city?
So I ask WP how he felt about President Kennedy, and he says he liked him and (paraphrasing) thought he was a big loss to the country. That was a pleasant surprise so I ask if his attitude is typical among his colleagues and he says yes. Another pleasant surprise but confusing since I interpreted this quote from his statement the wrong way:
"The people on the flight out of Dallas were very quiet. I interpreted their silence as dejection at the mission's failure to abort the assassination of the President. I believed that if these men had been the shooters or assassins themselves, they would have been very excited because they had carried it off." Thinking that meant the passengers were disappointed they weren't the ones who got to do the killing, which doesn't jibe with colleagues who tended to favor JFK, I asked for clarification. A third person clarified, WP confirmed, and I expressed relief and said I hoped he understood my confusion etc.
But I still have a million questions 'cause I want to take advantage of the opportunity to ask them, plus I don't understand why one of the likely shooters was on an abort mission so I ask that. I also send links with pictures of people photographed in Dealey Plaza that look like known CIA ops, and ask if he recognizes anybody. I consider that research, which is what we're all doing here. And just in case I'm asking too many questions I add the following:
"I hope you don't mind all the questions. I'm just trying to piece things together as so many here are. If you can't answer some then I understand." That should have made it clear that if he felt bugged he should ignore the questions or state he'd rather not answer or can't answer or whatever 'cause I didn't want to impose. Hard to imagine how I could have been clearer.
Yet at that point I get jumped on by you and another board member posting rather provocative and hostile jibes, but not directed at me, rather about me. Not much appreciated... Esp in light of the fact that I had repeatedly made clear that he didn't owe me answers to any questions. How are you with psychology? I'm guessing you're pretty good, so you know that if someone is being dumped on and accused of something they likely won't respond in the best way, and it was like a match in front of a pilot light.
So here's why the match ignited. The murder of President Kennedy is horribly emotional for me, and no doubt for many here. That's why I thanked WP early on for his answers, and said it was difficult and emotional. Not only did we get robbed of a man who had evolved into a damn good president, who put people over profits, but the country devolved -- from that point on -- into the fascist hell hole we're in today. The clans and people who are now imitating the WW2 nazis and ruling the US, are the same clans and people who killed JFK. I fukin' hate the CIA for murdering him. While I care much more about the people planned things, obviously they (CIA, funders, LBJ, Nixon) couldn't carry out their plans without foot soldiers willing to take money for murder. They couldn't do it without foot soldiers willing to take money to spread propaganda and cover up the crimes. And while the planners are worse than the foot soldiers to me, that's just a relative thing. They're all plenty bad.
Through statements and posts we've been told things that I find incredible: The CIA was trying to save Kennedy's life. The CIA was trying to save Kennedy's life by flying a notorious mobster and assassin into Dallas where he was murdered. In spite of the bay of pigs and all the bad blood between JFK and the CIA, the CIA worker bees liked him, and John Roselli liked Kennedy and told WP that.
Didn't Roselli work for Sam Giancana? Didn't Giancana dispise JFK for supposedly double crossing him for using his help to get elected, then allowing his attorney general to go after the mob? Is it even remotely possible that Roselli didn't dispise JFK too, let alone like him? It appears that some of this must be untrue, unless we're really in bizarro world...But since we are in fact in bizarro world (we're through the looking glass; black is white and white is black) it could be that Roselli didn't shoot anybody in Dallas that day. We get so much disinfo that who the hell knows what's fact and what's fiction.
Well, that's largely due to the CIA too. They've spread so much propaganda and muddied so many facts to insure people stay befuddled, and made people so paranoid...or is it paranoia if someone's really out to get you? Through the looking glass. And does it matter if we're being lied to still? It does to me. They do wear us down with disinfo. Gaeton Fonzi describes how much time and energy he's wasted on disinfo. Most of us aren't doing the level of investigation that Fonzi did, but the BS and covert crap still takes a toll. Look how paranoid people are about stealth trolls in forums like this. You were concerned that I was one, which is somewhat understandible with a newbie. But we can thank the American KGB for a lot of the paranoia. They've seriously damaged the country, the world.
The people who do their dirty work, who take their blood money, really should be culpable. Clearly they'll never be sentenced in a court of law, but that doesn't make their actions on behalf of the agency legal or proper or acceptable. I never for a second stated that WP was a "cold blooded killer" as you say. But I don't think the CIA could have accomplished it's cold blooded killing without people willing to keep their heads down and draw their salary while doing things that clearly smelled bad bad and that they probably knew was illegal.
And that's the best I can explain it.
Anyway, I am focusing on manipulators and facillitators higher up on the ladder of success as well. And I agree to some extent with Jim Marrs who wants people to focus on 911 rather than JFK because it's fresher and the internet has allowed people to more quickly assimilate evidence. But both JFK and 911 are important. The past crimes and current crimes are important (and linked; JFK and 911 had many similarities). Tho' I'm still not sure how to "go after" the guys on the ladder.
-
"Lane concludes that destruction of US honor througout the world is the biggest problem today;
Lane is working on a piece of legislation which would require everyone from the cabinet level up
to be taxed 100% on their personal gains from war profiteering"
Can't imagine it happening, but wouldn't it change the world dramatically if it did? Suddenly, no more war. Poof. But the price of gas would go up to 8 million dollars a barrel to compensate.
The important point to grasp about people like Bush and Cheney is that they are not really conservatives. A major factor in conservative philosophy is the belief in a reduction in government spending. Bush, like Reagan before him, has greatly increased government spending during his period in power. When Bush took over in 2000, the long-term fiscal liability of the federal government was $20 trillion. It now stands at $43 trillion. Bush has increased government spending at a faster rate than any Congress since the 1930s (Roosevelt’s New Deal).
Reagan and Bush had no option but to increase government spending in certain parts of the economy. This is the way governments pay back their financial supporters. Large corporations do not give donations, they make investments. Who made money from the Vietnam War? LBJ’s long-term financial backers: Halliburton, General Dynamics, Bell Corporation.
The same is true of the Iraq War. The contracts for rebuilding Iraq was organized by a company called New Bridge Strategies. This company was owned by Barbour, Griffith & Rogers. The majority shareholder in this company is Haley Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi. His partners, Lanny Griffith and Ed Rogers, are two lawyers who formerly worked in the George H. W. Bush administration. Barbour is also in charge of raising money for Republican Senate campaigns.
Barbour is a long-term supporter of George Bush. He arranged for a small group of companies, Bechtel ($1 billon), Halliburton ($2.3 billion) and International American Products ($527 million), to get most of the contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq schools, airports, roads, bridges, hospitals and power plants. It is no coincidence that these three companies are all major political donors to the Republican Party.
This is the reality of American capitalism. You can’t let the deaths of US military or Iraqi civilians to get in the way of profits.
Yes. I'm starting to think of President Kennedy as an early casuality of the Vietnam war. His name should be on the Vietnam war memorial in DC, along with "NSAM #263." By the time he became our president the power elite knew that the most profitable industry was war. Get paid to build bombs to destroy a town, then get paid to rebuild it. Sweet.
Brown and Root give LBJ money to murder his way into the White House, then he cranks up the Vietnam war and hires Brown and Root to build stuff in Vietnam. Decades later Brown and Root, now called Halliburton, gives money to Bush steal his way into the whitehouse, then he invades an oil rich PNAC country and hires Halliburton to build stuff. Ah, tradition.
I understand the distinction you're making John. The true conservatives I know are just as horrified with this regime as the progressives are. As much as I disagree with true conservatives, at least they had a sincere philosophy that I can understand on an dispassionate level. Whereas the "neo-cons" (who shouldn't be called neo-cons since it's a misnomer) are fascists. It's definitely too nice to merely call them hypocrites, tho' that's accurate as well.
"American capitalism" - right; the scenario you describe makes it obvious that Jack Abramoff's strategy is typical of politicians in American capitalism. I used to think of lobbying as legalized bribery. It's more like money laundering. Between Abramoff and Delay it was just a big ol' laundering scheme. If people want certain legislation they pay for it and the bribes are hidden (in the case of Abramoff not very well). And that's how the US political system works. And that's why Communism has been the boogeyman for so long; not because of any ideological disagreement but because corporate profit is the only thing that matters. Not people not life not art or ideas, just corporate profit. Once the Commie boogyman was gone they had to scramble to come up with another justification for war, and Terrorism became the new boogeyman. And it's an even better one, it's open ended; can't be won or lost. Yeah, perpetual war for perpetual profit.
Now Barbour, Griffith & Rogers - that's all totally new to me. Thank you for the info. I need to research that. Hm, in Farenheit 911 Michael Moore showed a convention of war profiteers dividing up the pie. I wonder if that was a Barbour, Griffith & Rogers event.
Oh, and on the subject of gov't spending, I do think that the power elite is having their Bush puppet crank it up to give the banks more interest money (thanks to the unconstitutional federal reserve system that President Kennedy was trying to eliminate along with the Vietnam war), and of course to funnel money to their corporate backers (where they own stock), and eventually to bankrupt the US so they can achieve their goal of globalization, the new world order, which brings us back to PNAC.
As most know, Mr. Lane was the attorney for the newspaper in the E. Howard Hunt trial in Florida, where the jury found that the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK. He says that Gerry Hemming told him that he was a shooter in Dealey Plaza. The enterview is fascinating. Anxious to hear your responses.
Terry
Great interview Terry. Lane has been something of a legend to me: Plausible Denial and Rush to Judgement are two of the better books-esp given how early they were written, he worked with Jim Garrison who was one of the bravest men in American history, Lane was attorney for the only court case that ever found that the CIA murdered President Kennedy. This is the first time I've actually heard him speak. I'm really pleased that he doesn't seem to have lost his edge. He speaks with passion and he's an encyclopedia of JFK info.
They have a good summary of the interview at: http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2006.html.
This is interesting:
""Detailed discussion of NSAM #273 (the reversal of #263); the draft of #273 had EIGHT
copies out on 11/21, the day before the assassination, a stunning behind-the-back
reversal of Kennedy's intentions to withdraw "all U.S. personnel" from Vietnam,
evidence that people in the loop already knew Kennedy would be killed"
Anyone know more about those those drafts?
And I love this:
"Lane concludes that destruction of US honor througout the world is the biggest problem today;
Lane is working on a piece of legislation which would require everyone from the cabinet level up
to be taxed 100% on their personal gains from war profiteering"
Can't imagine it happening, but wouldn't it change the world dramatically if it did? Suddenly, no more war. Poof. But the price of gas would go up to 8 million dollars a barrel to compensate.
I met Mark Lane around 1976 when he was in LaJolla, CA at a book signing and promotional talk for "Plausable Denial." Out of happenstance I arrived early and ate at a local cafe. Mark Lane sat next to me at the burger counter. I recognised heim, stuck up a conversation and handed him a recent newspaper article on Chauncy Holt since Chauncy lived a few miles inland in LaMesa and the article in the San Diego Union was all about Chauncy's ties to the Kennedy assasination. Chauncy claimed to be one one the three tramps who walked with his "toes out" as did the last of the three tramps.
I don't know if Mark Lane ever followed up and interviewed Chauncy Holt. I know at the time Chauncy wanted someone to help him write a book. But I do have my autographed copy of "Plausable Denial" with a "Thank your for the Newspaper Article" from Mark Lane.
That was my two-minutes of fame.
-- Bill Grote
Wow I'm envious Bill. Really, Mark Lane is a hero. And that's a great autograph, what with the newspaper article mention.
Do you remember much else about your conversation with him?
If I suddenly ran into him I'd think of a million questions, about 24 hours later.
-
>nor was it a "frangible" bullet.
How can you be so sure? Can you tell from pictures and film of the shot? How would a frangible bullet differ from what we've seen?
Thanks.
By a complete and thorough examination of the known/remaining fragments which were found inside the Presidential Limo.
Thereafter, if one takes the time to evaluate the mechanics of how this bullet became deformed and cut up into it's various pieces, it begins to answer many of the questions that continue to be asked.
Do bullets which strike the head, under normal conditions, fragment such as this?-----Absolutely not!
However, the tangential strike across the top of the head was not a "normal strike", and the exit most assuredly was not normal.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/X_AUT_2.JPG
There are those who claim some expertise in this matter, who will state that they can look at the autopsy X-Rays of JFK's head and thereafter determine such garbage as "mercury bullets" having been utilized.
1. Rest assured that one CAN NOT look at an X-ray and determine the physical composition of that material found within, which create the opaque/white areas within the X-ray.
2. The autopsy surgeons, in front of all of those other persons present, found/located/and removed fragments of lead from the brain of JFK.
So, unless one is susceptable to believe body kidnappings and giant conspiracies which encompass dozens of persons from different agencies, then one must accept the given fact that lead fragments were removed from the head/brain of JFK during the autopsy.
Well, whereas I'm not "susceptable" to the lone nut theory or the magic bullet theory, I am susceptable to logic. And given that President Kennedy's wounds at Bethesda were dramatically different from the wounds described by doctors in Parkland, it seems clear that his body was...susceptable to post-mortem alteration.
For example, a scalpal was obviously used to cut a triangle near his forhead, presumably to hide the entrance wound in that area, since it was on the opposite side from the designated patsy.
Given the clear post-mortem surgery, and the fact that many have said that the x-rays could not have been JFK's, I don't know how valid an autopsy at Bethesda could be.
I understand what you're saying about the inability to detect mercury in an x-ray. It would have been preferable if the use of mercury bullets could have been confirmed or debunked by exhuming JFK's body. Though Joe West tried to do exactly that and died a mysterious death shortly after winning a court order to exhume. The tendency for investigators to die right as they're collecting evidence has made it hard to collect evidence.
3. The distribution of lead fragments throughout the brain of JFK indicates an ever increasing amount of particle distribution, from the rear----forward.
4. Examination of a piece of bone from the frontal lobe area demonstrated the "beveling" as well as the embedded metal residue where the projectile began it's exit from the skull, as it passed from rear to forward.
5. The remains of the fragmented bullet were immediately found within the Presidential Limousine, therefore, and again, unless one believes in all of this "conspiracy" network that those who were behind it had the foresight as well as capability to plant evidence into the Presidential Limousine, then one must accept that the portions of the WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet that were found in the frontal area of the Presidential Limousine, came from the fragmented bullet which struck him in the head, striking from the rear.
6. Although there are ITALIAN 6.5mm Carcano rounds which contained soft-nose tips, WCC, as far as is known, produced absolutely no such ammunition.
7. Due to the nose portion of the copper jacket to the bullet (which struck at Z313) being missing, it is impossible to determine if some prior "slicing" to the copper jacket aided in this bullet's rapid deformation upon impact & exit from the skull.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0141b.htm
However, based on the manner in which the lead core of the bullet nose began to split, with some very definitive straight tears along three almost equal divisions, it would be extremely unusual for this to occur without some prior weakening of the supporting copper jacket.
Which happens to be fully indicative of a "three-way" equal slice along the copper jacket of the bullet nose.
Those of us who are familiar with the means to avoid the intent of the rules regarding FMJ bullets in warfare, soon found the advantage of "slicing" the copper jacket at the nose of the bullet. And although most of us "X'ed" the nose, there is little to prevent one from performing a three-way slice as well.
I would also state that there are other photo's of CE567 which more clearly demonstrate the three divisions of the lead core of the bullet nose, and which more clearly demonstrate this anomaly.
Just can not locate where my photo's are "lost" at right now.
Do you think it's possible that two bullets collided in the President's head? If two bullets collided would they explode and cause the kind of head damage we've seen in photos and the Zapruder film?
Thanks.
-
"I see dumb people...They post here."
Really Tosh? Post number 22 in this very thread was a dupe from you.
Maybe you just don't want to fall out of touch with me. If that's the case then it's no problem. I have some ideas on topics we can cover.
Unless an open discussion is too overt for you and you'd rather be a thread xxxxx. After all your work history indicates a strong preference for covert ops.
-
As most know, Mr. Lane was the attorney for the newspaper in the E. Howard Hunt trial in Florida, where the jury found that the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK. He says that Gerry Hemming told him that he was a shooter in Dealey Plaza. The enterview is fascinating. Anxious to hear your responses.
Terry
Great interview Terry. Lane has been something of a legend to me: Plausible Denial and Rush to Judgement are two of the better books-esp given how early they were written, he worked with Jim Garrison who was one of the bravest men in American history, Lane was attorney for the only court case that ever found that the CIA murdered President Kennedy. This is the first time I've actually heard him speak. I'm really pleased that he doesn't seem to have lost his edge. He speaks with passion and he's an encyclopedia of JFK info.
They have a good summary of the interview at: http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2006.html.
This is interesting:
"Detailed discussion of NSAM #273 (the reversal of #263); the draft of #273 had EIGHT
copies out on 11/21, the day before the assassination, a stunning behind-the-back
reversal of Kennedy's intentions to withdraw "all U.S. personnel" from Vietnam,
evidence that people in the loop already knew Kennedy would be killed"
Anyone know more about those those drafts?
And I love this:
"Lane concludes that destruction of US honor througout the world is the biggest problem today;
Lane is working on a piece of legislation which would require everyone from the cabinet level up
to be taxed 100% on their personal gains from war profiteering"
Can't imagine it happening, but wouldn't it change the world dramatically if it did? Suddenly, no more war. Poof. But the price of gas would go up to 8 million dollars a barrel to compensate.
-
"I'm all confused with the text colors."
It's my way of citing that "point" of someone's dialogue to which I am choosing to "counterpoint," or reply.
If you look closely, you'll notice I've also taken the liberty of placing quotation marks at the beginning and at the end of the "point" I've set in color.
I've found that color makes it easier for most people to separate what one person is saying to the other, rather than for the text to be monochromatic in "black" and bound with
....There seems to be less chance of the reader misinterpreting what one poster is replying to another poster, especially when there are multiple posters in one thread, or posters with the same first name.
I also start with a line of asterisks, double-spaced between the post I am replying to and mine, as a means of separating the body of that post from mine.
The utilization of color is something I picked up from another forum member, Robert Charles Dunne, as well as from our leader or moderator of this forum, John Simkin.
************************************************
Well now I've picked it up from you. I'm all for decreasing confusion.
[On edit removed bogus "dupe" tag 'cause confusion is decreased but not eliminated.]
-
"But the Dulles brothers seem more embedded than all of the above. Like the CIA was really the tool they used to take care of business. All that awkward stuff with the nazis."
And, let's not leave out Prescott Bush, Milton Friedman, I.G. Farben, and their meeting in Friedrich Hayek's Swiss chalet circa 1933. This is from PBS' "Commanding The Heights."
Oh I'd never forget that old goose-stepper Prescott. Hell, he's the link that led me to investigate President Kennedy's assassination. Along with George HW. I'd been researching the general subject of American fascism since it hit me between the eyes in the 2000 coup. So I thought I knew a fair amount about Prescott and Union Bank and such.
But when I found the old FBI declassified memos referring to George Bush, with the Central Intelligence Agency, pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy...that was sort of the big eureka (aka 'holy fukin' crap) moment when it became clear that the big coup was in 1963, and they've been in charge ever since. That, of course, makes our "elections" laughable.
I finally understand why so few people in this country vote because it won't make a difference. I used to argue with them.
Whereas everything else you named--Milton Friedman, I.G. Farben, etc--is totally new to me. Thanks. And I hadn't known as much about Prescott as I'd thought.
" "Just before his death, James Jesus Angleton, the legendary chief of counterintelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, was a bitter man. He felt betrayed by the people he had worked for all his life. In the end, he had come to realize that they were never really interested in American ideals of "freedom" and "democracy." They really only wanted "absolute power." Angleton told author Joseph Trento that the reason he had gotten the counterintelligence job in the first place was by agreeing not to submit "sixty of Allen Dulles' closest friends" to a polygraph test concerning their business deals with the Nazis."
J.J.A. never gave a rat's ass about American [misplaced, IMHO] ideals. He was just another imperialistic fascist, himself, following the same "Manifest Destiny" doctrine of our "founding fathers." Why do you think Americans appear as half-wits to the rest of the world? Because the whole basis for these American ideals of "freedom" and "democracy" were built and forged upon the backs of disenfranchised slaves, and the indiscriminant slaughter of the Native Americans who had been inhabiting and cultivating this continent centuries before the "white- eyes" with the "long-knives" ever set foot on these shores. Of course, you'll never read about the true basis for this country's independence in any schoolbook because that might cause students to really think about the true motives of its "founding fathers." No, it's much wiser for the citizens to believe in God, Mom, and apple pie, lest they view themselves with guilt and disdain for allowing themselves to be duped into buying that fairytale of the "White Knight in shining armour," riding up to save the day from all form and "color" of [noble] savage beast, not "white" enough to be considered "of the human race."
Ah, funny you mention this because I'd just ordered James Tague's book from the library, and in researching it (trying to trying to distinguish the real Amazon reviews from the propaganda "reviews") I saw the following:
"50 of 56 people found the following review helpful:
a European perspective, July 14, 2003
Reviewer: "quagga3" (Paris, France) - See all my reviews
From a European perspective there is nothing new in the fact that John F. Kennedy was murdered by several assassins and that several shots were fired from the front - at least that is what I was taught at school in the seventies, with the cautionary remark that Americans were too naive to be able to accept the truth - the truth being not only the facts of the JFK murder but the much more sinister fact that they were lied at by several successive governments, by the CIA, the FBI, and almost all their mass media. Maybe it was easier to see this truth from a continent that had been ravaged by a horrible war where unbelievable atrocities had been committed in the name of governments. Maybe it was easier because the European nations had had more than their share of "Tyrannenmord" in the past. When I grew up during the "Cold War" I actually did not see that much difference between the Soviet government and the U.S. government. They used somewhat different methods to hush up their dirty secrets but they were both effective up to a point.
Apart from the simple facts which one of the eye-witnesses at last discloses this book strikes me most by the effect it had in its first edition. What is most strange and not a little frightening is the way the American media still dictate the people what to believe and what not. Even now, 40 years after, they are still trying to hide the truth, to distort what cannot be hidden, to spread disinformation, to influence or discredit witnesses, and in this case to shed doubt on the reliability and the reputation of a distinguished surgeon. In an unprecedented act of defamation a scientific(!) journal, the "Journal of the American Medical Association" (JAMA) called Dr Crenshaw's book "a fabrication". Crenshaw sued for "slander with malice" and won in court but the damage to his reputation cannot be undone. The motto of cover-up people has always been "Audacter calumniare, semper aliquid haeret". The courageous author of this book is no exception."
http://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Room-One-Medi...3139235-5012037
'Kay, point taken.
I suppose it's very easy for someone to have it both ways--pillage and plunder and murder and cash paychecks for all of the above (or did they always get paid in cash?) in the name of "government service," then spew some deathbed platitudes in a belated effort to soften their legacy. Not to mention (as I mention) the fact that as a CIA guy he was likely a propaganda expert, i.e., xxxx.
And I've been bothered by the orignal hypocracy of this country for my whole adult life. The fact that it was, as you point out, built on the fundamental concept that all men are created equal (not including women and slaves your mileage may vary void where prohibited). And the fact that it was never a democracy anyway because of the electoral college, which was designed to keep the unwashed masses from getting all uppity and thinking they're actually allowed to elect a president. That sure served the real rulers well in 2000. As it was intended to do. Good planning rich white guys!
God bless 'merica.
"True. But I'm in the vicinity. What's below the rose--on the stem?"
The "root ball". I have three rose bushes.
Oh yeah...the roots. Of course!
-
My guess is Ken Rahn and John McAdams
Oh, yer right Greg.
But I think I should get partial credit 'cause Vince Bugliosi will be a major disinfo agent the second his LN books comes out.
-
Here is a photo of two of the most significant JFK assassination disinformation agents. Can anyone name them?
Is that Vincent Bugliosi on the left?
Here is a photo of two of the most significant JFK assassination disinformation agents. Can anyone name them?Jim Agnew on the right?
-
"James Files has claimed, in detail, how he, Roselli and Charles Nicoletti fired the fatal shots killing President John F. Kennedy at Dallas’ Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963."
Bingo!
"Bill Bonnano also states in his autobiography that while he was imprisoned with Roselli he spoke to him about the Kennedy assassination. Roselli claimed that hehad fired a shot from a stormdrain located on Elm Street."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roselli"
Are you aware of the fact that Wikipedia is merely made up of anyone with the ability to plug in a search engine, copy and paste information from sources that may be less than reliable, or misinformative due to the fact that these unlicensed personnel have been granted the opportunity to create history as they deem fit, sans any oversight committee to ensure its viability. Wikipedia is not of the same caliber as an encyclopedia, as their name might imply. I just found this out last Sunday.
Yes. That's true. And I've seen pages that I had no confidence in, that were inaccurate and/or slanted, and I've haggled trying to get one "fixed." (It's very hard to get one changed. Everone just bickers forever.) So it's not the gospel. I'll generally cross check, which google makes easy, and find confirmation. In the case of Roselli in Dealey plaza, he's placed there by multiple sources.
"Roselli claimed that he had fired a shot from a stormdrain located on Elm Street."
This has been debated ad nauseum, and proven to be next to impossible taking into consideration the angle
required to get off a direct hit. Maybe if the desired effect would be to blow out a tire, or puncture the oil pan. I'm not aware of any exotic form of periscopic rifle employed that day.
"Periscope rifle" - very good. Yeah, the storm drain quote does seem absurd. It appears that he was actually in the Dal-Tex building with Nicoletti, and some guy on the fire escape, easily visible to the secret service goons of course... I think, based on witness statements, that the TSBD had a cuban and some mystery guy on the 5th floor.
I'm all confused with the text colors.
-
['Terry Mauro' date='Oct 30 2006, 04:19 AM' post='79177']
"Lane represented The Spotlight, and was successful in overturning the lower court's ruling; in the process of that appeal, Lane won an unprecedented, unanimous verdict from the jury that the CIA had killed JFK..."
I'm very familiar with that trial, having been a subscriber of The Spotlight for many years. That's where I found Prouty's books in their Noontide Press catalogue.
I'm just now reading Prouty's books, "JFK--The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" and "The Secret Team" 'cause he seems to have the level of understanding I want. Also Deep Politics.
"Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult --he was asking us to believe that John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy..."
And, I would venture to take that a step further and follow the cobblestone road leading to Wall Street. IMO, there was a definite concerted effort on the part of the banking cartels, financial houses, and brokerage firms, etc. aka The Eastern Establishment, without which BTW, the seemingly endless source of collateral needed to keep the lid on this case for all these years, would have been possible. Remember, the Dulles brothers hailed from the Wall Street corporate law offices of Sullivan and Cromwell.
This is where a big gap in my knowledge is. On an obvious level there's HL Hunt and his spawn Lamar, ad hoc funders (the "Texans" Nixon refered to). And likely Nelson Rockefeller...maybe David(?) Even there I'm pretty hazy. So I appreciate the leads.
But the Dulles brothers seem more embedded than all of the above. Like the CIA was really the tool they used to take care of business. All that awkward stuff with the nazis.
Hm, I'm looking at the indexes of the Prouty and Peter Dale Scott books. I'm surprised they don't have more on Sullivan and Cromwell, but Prouty does have this in "JFK...":
"These are incredible men, these defiers of presidents. One might say that they do not need them. Ambassador George V. Allen after a state dinner with John Foster Dulles said "Dulles spoke as if he had his own line to God and was getting his instructions from a very high source."
Allen Dulles was also a lawyer and a partner with Sullivan & Cromwell. The brothers were in touch with the power elite, and a mere President influenced them not at all. So many qualified people who have worked "close to the seat of power" -- men like Winston Churchill... -- confirm that these so-called leaders get their instructions from a very high source. These "leaders" are all fine actors, and certainly not true rulers..."
---
"Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg once stated that "The Dulles brothers were traitors." Some historians believe that Allen Dulles became head of the newly formed CIA in large part to cover up his treasonous behavior and that of his clients. " -- Christian Dewar, Making a Killing
"Just before his death, James Jesus Angleton, the legendary chief of counterintelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, was a bitter man. He felt betrayed by the people he had worked for all his life. In the end, he had come to realize that they were never really interested in American ideals of "freedom" and "democracy." They really only wanted "absolute power." Angleton told author Joseph Trento that the reason he had gotten the counterintelligence job in the first place was by agreeing not to submit "sixty of Allen Dulles' closest friends" to a polygraph test concerning their business deals with the Nazis. In his end-of-life despair, Angleton assumed that he would see all his old companions again "in hell."" -- Michael Hasty, Paranoid Shift
---
"Why do you say I have "more of a grasp of the truth than most of the people around here"?"
Because, I've been around the block more times than I care to remember, and you don't come across as some tender young bud on the rose bush, nor as some shrinking violet, either.
True. But I'm in the vicinity. What's below the rose--on the stem?
-
Is that right? I think you've got more of a grasp of the truth than most of the people around here. Just what are you looking for aside from attempting to extract public confessions out of people you perceive to be THE
murderers of JFK?
Overall I'm looking for information on the murder of President Kennedy because I think that his murder was the genesis of the bleak situation that exists in the US today. The start of the end. Recently I was trying to reconcile how someone could help fly a notorious assassin to the murder site while promoting a story that he was part of a team trying to stop the assassination. It doesn't appear that it can be reconciled.
In general I'm much more interested in the planners than the shooters. But in the CIA I think we have both.
Why do you say I have "more of a grasp of the truth than most of the people around here"?
--
Mark "Lane describes Hunt v. Liberty Lobby, Hunt's suit against the Liberty Lobby Newspaper,
The Spotlight, and Victor Marchetti, author of the article in question; Hunt won $650,000.00
in the suit, but on the newspaper's appeal, Lane represented The Spotlight, and was successful in overturning
the lower court's ruling; in the process of that appeal, Lane won an unprecedented, unanimous verdict
from the jury that the CIA had killed JFK...
Jury forewoman, Leslie Armstrong, offered this assessment of the trial: "Mr. Lane was asking us to do something very difficult --he was asking us to believe that John Kennedy had been killed by our own government. Yet when we examined the evidence closely, we were compelled to conclude that the CIA had indeed killed President Kennedy...
When the trial started I believed in the American way, mom and apple pie. Now I believe in mom and apple pie."
He was flogging his book "In the Line of Fire" in which he says the US threatened to bomb his country into the stone age if he didn't cooperate in the invasion of Afganistan.
Flechette shot from 70 feet away?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
It can work either way: either disolve and be undetectable or leave the metal arrow. I had assumed that, if it was used on President Kennedy, it was of the disolving kind. But the more I study the amBUSH the more I realize the perps were much more concerned with overkilling the President than with being discreet. They knew LBJ's coverup, and the media mouthpieces, would paper it over.
Here's Sprague's speculative description of what may have happened with a disolving "missile":
"The first rifle shot was fired from the second floor of the Dal Tex building. It struck JFK in the back, five and three-quarters inches below his shirt-collar line, at frame Z225. Since JFK's muscles were paralyzed, he was like a rigid, sitting duck target. His head and upper torso were driven down and forward, and his elbows were flung upward and outward, because no muscles would stop a rotating elbow and arm motion pivoting around two frozen points- -his fists and his shoulders. (Observe all of these points between photos #5 and 6, Z225 and Z227--2/18 seconds apart.) If JFK had been in a nonparalyzed state, the back shot would have knocked him much farther forward and down.
The flechette dissolved in JFK's body, leaving no trace, except for the small entrance wound in his neck. The poison would not have shown up in the autopsy, even if tests for it had been made. However, because there was no apparent reason to suspect poison, no tests for it were made."
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html