Question for Tosh

Myra Bronstein · October 30, 2006

"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 · October 30, 2006

"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.

*******************************************************************

"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.

Terry Mauro · October 30, 2006

['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?

*********************************************************************

"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."

" "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."

"True. But I'm in the vicinity. What's below the rose--on the stem?"

The "root ball". I have three rose bushes.

Now, if you'll excuse me. I have to leave for work.

Myra Bronstein · October 31, 2006

"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!

Myra Bronstein · October 31, 2006

"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.]

Edited October 31, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

William Plumlee · October 31, 2006

deleted

Edited November 2, 2006 by William Plumlee

Myra Bronstein · October 31, 2006

"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.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

Terry Mauro · October 31, 2006

"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.

Edited October 31, 2006 by Terry Mauro

Terry Mauro · October 31, 2006

"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!

*****************************************************************

"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

Their perspective is spot on! Thanks for putting that up.

"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."

I noted you bringing up the "Electoral College" in another post further up in the thread, I believe. And, I tried not to comment at the time because if there are two concepts I find to be exceedingly egregious, and which I abhor, with every bone in my body, it's the Electoral College and Laissez Faire. I'll definitely have a stroke on those two.

Well, it's 02:30 PST, and I must hit the sack for a couple of hours before having to

"get up and do it again. Amen." Words courtesy of Jackson Browne.

Myra Bronstein · October 31, 2006

"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.

Terry Mauro · October 31, 2006

"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.

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.

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.

**********************************************************************

Excellent post, Myra.

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.

"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. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

O.K. I'm on my way to work now.

Myra Bronstein · November 1, 2006

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.

Thomas Graves · November 1, 2006

"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

___________________________________

Edited November 1, 2006 by Thomas Graves

Myra Bronstein · November 1, 2006

"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.

Terry Mauro · November 1, 2006

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.

*******************************************************************************

"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?"

Maybe it's what appears to be unbridled enthusiasm, or as possibly coming across in a "cynically" optimistic tone. I'm not quite sure at this point because I respect the logistical style with which you present your facts. It's quite obvious you've read a great deal on the subject. Alot of people become obsessed with it, but it seems you've managed to try and maintain somewhat of an objective outlook. But, suspicions are sometimes aroused when a poster might be seen as "flitting" from forum to forum and posting up a storm. This has a tendency to send up red flags to both the admin and the members. On the other hand, I choose to believe the individual may be in the process of absorbing any and everything they can get their hands on. Be it in the way of info or data on the case, or as a method of catching up on a thread.

"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."

That's exactly what I'm inferring. If anything, the signing of the Civil Rights Bill lost Johnson the Southern Dixiecrats' support he'd enjoyed for much of his political career.

"Anyway, but I think he [JFK] 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?"

It's a known fact that his brother, Bobby was the more idealistic, yet radical personna of the two. It certainly appeared, at times, as if JFK looked like he'd wished it would all go away, or at least settle down to a low roar. Civil Rights was a festering boil on the ass of America that had been tucked away for far too long. If JFK could be considered to have been "in the right place at the right time," by getting elected, then he could just as easily be considered to have been "in the wrong place," by getting killed, as well. And, I hate to keep harping back to this, but think about the paradox this government was founded upon, in the first place.

Yes, JFK was a rich kid, pushed by a father whose ambitions knew no bounds, but if you look at the dynamics of the family, as a whole, JFK was not his father's ideal choice to attain the heights he had in mind. It was his firstborn son, Joe who was being groomed for the job. JFK was a sickly child, who spent the majority of his time reading books. This fact alone leads one to believe that JFK's thought processes were being influenced in an entirely different direction than that of his more robust, physically healthier brothers. When his older brother, Joe was killed in World War II, the burden of this brother's unfulfilled legacy ended up being bequeathed to JFK, whether he wanted it or not.

Therefore, when you wonder how much JFK had evolved in the direction of Civil Rights, I believe his 1000 days in office were a total realization on his part, of the values that mattered in terms of the world, the earth and its inhabitants. Remember, he was raising two small children while he was in office. This must have made him acutely concerned about how they were going to be able to thrive in a world where cows were dropping dead from radiation poisoning due to above-ground testing. It was JFK who put an end to the practice because he began to worry about the milk his kids were going to be drinking. When taken on a tour of the missile sites and given an estimate of the number of nuclear warheads the Defense Department was contracting to be made, he remarked, "We already have enough warheads to blow up the earth seven times. Wouldn't that be considered overkill?" Or, words to that effect. I believe I read that in William Manchester's book, "One Brief Shining Moment."

So, I would say that JFK's ideas about life evolved in a myriad of positive directions, as witnessed in his speech to the commencement class at the American University. JFK's ideas had evolved to such a degree as to have pissed off the "secret team' and its "shadow government" to where they considered him too adverse and too dangerous to their agenda. He became a liability to their cause, and needed to be eliminated, yet eliminated in such a way as to cow the general populace into submission. A submission the citizenry have yet to rise above.

Listen, we could go on and on, forever. But I trust you already have a solid foundation from which to build upon, or to launch whatever kind of investigation or crusade of your own that you may have in mind. Therefore, I'm going to pass the torch to you, secure in the knowledge that there are still some people out there who care enough, are strong enough, smart enough, and bold enough to venture into the labyrinth. Carry on.

Question for Tosh

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements