Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Jason, I disagree with your statement that politicians will always go with the politically expedient answer over the truth. They certainly would take into account the ramifications should the truth ever leak out. Which in the JFK assassination case was fairly probable considering the large number of people involved in the cover up. When the decision was made to cover up the conspiracy, surely officials knew that the cover-up would become a gigantic mess if the truth ever got out. It had to have taken some serious sh*t to convince the federal government it was better to cover up rather than run a proper investigation.
  3. Sandy Larsen writes: <blockquote>I thought that Mathias showed earlier that, for Oswald to have passed the language test at the level he did, he had to have reached the L2/R2 level by that time. Am I wrong?</blockquote> The test that Oswald took does not seem to have been a pass-or-fail test, but only an assessment of ability. Mathias's source stated that the L2/R2 level was the minimum requirement for military language analysts. Oswald's performance ("His rating was poor throughout") does not suggest that he would have made a competent military language analyst. Nor does a "poor" performance seem to be consistent with the L2/R2 standard, which requires a "limited working proficiency." Here is part of the definition of the L2 standard: <blockquote>Sufficient comprehension to understand conversations on routine social demands and limited job requirements. Able to understand face-to-face speech in a standard dialect, delivered at a normal rate with some repetition and rewording, by a native speaker not used to dealing with foreigners, about everyday topics, common personal and family news, well-known current events and routine office matters.</blockquote> If you have a look at the document Mathias found ( http://www.dliflc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Generic-Fam-Guide-MC-CBu-updated.pdf ), you'll see descriptions of various levels of language competence. Here is part of the definition of the L0+ standard: <blockquote>Sufficient comprehension to understand a number of memorized utterances in areas of immediate needs. Slight increase in utterance length understood but requires frequent long pauses between understood phrases and repeated requests on the listener's part for repetition. Understands with reasonable accuracy only when this involves short memorized utterances or formulae. Utterances understood are relatively short in length.</blockquote> And here is the L1 standard ("elementary proficiency"): <blockquote>Sufficient comprehension to understand utterances about basic survival needs and minimum courtesy and travel requirements in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics, can understand simple questions and answers, simple statements and very simple face-to-face conversations in a standard dialect.</blockquote> My guess is that someone who could only manage a "poor" performance in the marines test would be somewhere around the L0+ to L1 level. Either way, the point is that Oswald's "poor" performance was clearly not that of a native speaker of Russian.
  4. A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

    Sandy, if Jim is right and Oswald really got a passing grade he would have had to be at least on level L2/R2, because that appears to be the bar the military sets for that kind of exams: https://www.german-way.com/levels-of-language-proficiency-my-life-in-germany/ http://www.dliflc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Generic-Fam-Guide-MC-CBu-updated.pdf The latter link I found especially interesting because it explains this type of test in great detail. However, as Jeremy has pointed out, Oswald was rated "poor" in several areas, so I wonder if Oswald really did get a passing grade.
  5. Paul is essentially saying that, since J. Edgar Hoover knew by 3 PM that Oswald wasn't a communist, the assassination therefore couldn't have been a leftist operation, and so it must have been a rightist operation. And that, because some government agents ignored the right-wing WANTED FOR TREASON handbills, it must be those behind the handbills who carried out the assassination. Or something like that. My response... First, even if Hoover knew Oswald wasn't a communist, how would that have led him to conclude it wasn't a leftist operation? Nobody at the time knew for sure what Oswald's politics were. And if they "knew" anything, it would have been that he was indeed a communist or Marxist!) It just doesn't follow that Hoover would have concluded it was a rightist operation. Second, the WANTED FOR TREASON handbills may be circumstantial evidence that those on the far right were involved in the assassination. But they are not evidence that the U.S. government knew ("with certainty") that General Walker's Minutemen and radical right were behind the assassination. The same is true of the federal agents ignoring the handbills and the radical right. THE BOTTOM LINE is that Paul has not provided any evidence that the U.S. government knew (by 3 PM, with certainty) that General Walker's minutemen and the radical right were behind the assassination. It is therefore just his opinion.
  6. Today
  7. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    Sandy, pure speculation... If we accept that Ruth stole Oswald's draft sometime in early November, she could have dropped the draft off at the FBI downtown as early as Monday the 11th when she had an appointment with her lawyer about her divorce. If it was written on an earlier weekend she could have given it to Hosty on Nov. 1st. If she did not steal the Oswald draft, well that opens up a can of worms I've considered but not given thought to, yet. Again, I'm just trying to understand how these events relate and why they happened like they did. Why did she withhold both versions of Oswald's draft from the Detectives searching her home? Where did she hide them? Why aren't they mentioned in her first statement? Why did she allegedly give Oswald's version to one FBI Agent and then later on give her version to a different Agent? Why didn't she ever mention the letter to her best bud, Marina? I, obviously, still have a lot of unanswered questions.
  8. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    No problem Sandy and thanks. 2. While Ruth was putting her child in a nearby high chair, Lee covered and obscured the "draft" that he was typing from Ruth's view. 3. This act of hiding his "draft" raised Ruth's suspicions about what Lee was doing. She did not observe either the draft or the typed document at that time. I have doubts about this little addition to Ruth's story. Ruth never elaborates about the conversation they had when Lee asks to use the typewriter. We have no context in which to frame anyone's expectations. Is privacy waived when you use someone else's typewriter? Did Ruth crowd in close enough that it seemed she was trying to read something? (snooping?) I have a full size hard copy of Lee's draft and there's no way anyone could read it unless they picked it up. You are not going to casually read it standing three feet away. Ruth admits that she never saw the typed document or the draft, so why is she so suspicious of Lee's use of the typewriter? We've established he had permission. This part of the story seems like a dramatic fabrication to support the actions she's going to describe next. (IMHO).
  9. I thought that Mathias showed earlier that, for Oswald to have passed the language test at the level he did, he had to have reached the L2/R2 level by that time. Am I wrong?
  10. Mathias Baumann writes: I don't think Oswald could have reached level L2/R2 in just two months without any instruction. He would have needed at least 4 - 5 lessons per day to get there. I agree, Mathias, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Oswald received instruction of some kind before he left the marines. But I doubt that Oswald was at the L2/R2 level at the time he took the test. Perhaps someone who achieved a high grade in the test would have been at that level. Oswald, however, did poorly in the test, which doesn't seem to have been a pass-or-fail type of test, but only an assessment of ability. All we can really conclude from Oswald's performance in the test is that he had only just begun to learn Russian, and that he was certainly not a native speaker of Russian.
  11. Hi Sandy, Paul explains his points well , but I do have some thoughts about this as it has occupied my research for the past week or so. I think there might be good reasons for the government to deny most any conspiracy and instead advance a Lone Nut narrative. When choosing between the truth and the politically expedient answer, politicians will always choose the politically expedient answer. A conspiracy is frightening and messy. There are loose ends. A single crazy man is finite, easily neutralized . Politicians only care about getting reelected, they care somewhat less about the truth. As for your question about how the government knows with certainty that it was a right-wing conspiracy: well, first of all, that this is a conspiracy is known on day one or two because we've got a dead body with both front and rear entry wounds. Perhaps LBJ knows this as early as 1pm at Parkland; I mean that's what the doctors would tell him in a private briefing. So the only real issue here becomes: Who is the CEO of the criminal enterprise to kill JFK? Basically instead of seeing Oswald as working with guys like Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Banister doing the CIA's work like in many theories, this CT has Walker and the Right Wing in the drivers seat. I understand Walker and the extreme Right as both more motivated and more capable to pull this off versus the CIA. This changes nothing about what Oswald was doing in Russia and it may not change anything about what Oswald himself imagined he was doing and working for on 22 November. LHO probably thought CIA because that's what Ferrie said. It's really overwhelmingly the Birchers and their front man Walker who are documented as violently hating Kennedy and considering assassination for 2-3 years. The Cubans are just a sideshow, a diversion, a labor supply exploited. Jason
  12. Jim writes: <blockquote>Mr. Bojczuk can now attempt to make others believe that "Lee Harvey Oswald" learned to speak, read, and write Russian without a teacher or a textbook, in two months!</blockquote> Here we go again. Jim is claiming that the person known as Oswald who took the Russian test was able to "speak, read and write Russian" by late February 1959. To what level could this person "speak, read and write Russian"? Jim doesn't tell us. It certainly wasn't to the level of a native speaker, as Jim might like us to believe, because this person's test results were poor. According to the source I quoted earlier, his score was "poor" in reading Russian, and "poor" in writing Russian, and "poor" in understanding (not speaking) Russian. "His rating was poor throughout." I wonder why Jim failed to qualify his statement. To give us an accurate description of Oswald's ability, he could have written that the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was able to "speak, read and write Russian" poorly. Or he could have written that the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was able to "speak, read and write Russian" to a level consistent with the theory that Oswald had only begun to learn the language two months earlier. Or he could have written that the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald was able to "speak, read and write Russian" in a way that was entirely inconsistent with the theory that Oswald was a native speaker of the language. I asked Jim if he would be kind enough to acknowledge the uncontroversial fact that Oswald's performance in his Russian test was poor, far below that of a native speaker. It doesn't seem much to ask. The real-life, one and only Lee Harvey Oswald had a poor ability to read, write and understand Russian at the time he took the test. Either that, or Oswald was pretending to have only a beginner's command of Russian. What's your opinion, Jim? Did Oswald really have only a rudimentary knowledge of Russian in February 1959, or was Oswald pretending to have only a rudimentary knowledge of Russian in February 1959? Which is it?
  13. Sandy, The evidence I see is as follows: 1. Professor David Wrone (Wisconsin U. 2005) wrote that J. Edgar Hoover recognized by 3pm EST that Lee Harvey Oswald was *not* a Communist as the authorities in Dallas were reporting, and that Oswald wasn't an officer of the FPCC, either. (This is from FBI HQ records from 11/22/1963) 2. Yet the Dallas authorities were telling the press that the JFK assassination was certainly a Communist plot. 3. White House Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach had to call Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr and demand proof of these Press Releases. Waggoner Carr pled ignorance, and called Dallas DA Henry Wade right away. Henry Wade pled ignorance, and sped to the Dallas Police Department to tell Jesse Curry and his men that if they have no proof, they must stop those press releases immediately. They stopped. 4. J. Edgar Hoover had three choices during the Cold War: (1) the Radical Left did it; (2) the Radical Right did it; or (3) It was a Loner. 5. J. Edgar Hoover could see quickly that this was no act of a Loner. He could also see quickly that the Radical Left had not done this. That left the likely option. 6. J. Edgar Hoover had a big, fat file on Lee Harvey Oswald. That's how he knew that Oswald was not a Communist -- J. Edgar Hoover had the name of every single Communist in the USA, and all their friends. 7. J. Edgar Hoover also knew the names of every single FPCC officer in the USA. He knew Lee Oswald was not a real FPCC officer, but Hoover also knew that there had been a Fake FPCC running out of New Orleans, and led by Guy Banister, a former FBI Chief. He quickly saw that Lee Harvey Oswald was in cahoots with Guy Banister, who worked in the same circles as Ex-General Walker. 8. J. Edgar Hoover also knew that FBI agent James Hosty was primarily assigned to watch the Radical Right in Dallas (cf. Assignment Oswald, 1996, ch. 1). He also knew that the FBI was responsible for telling the Secret Service PRS of any dangerous people in any town -- and that James Hosty neglected to tell the PRS about the people who wrote the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill, although Hosty knew very well it was Robert Allen Surrey, his bridge partner for many years. 9. In my surmise, Hoover figured out the whole plot before 3pm EST that the Radical Right in Dallas had killed JFK and had set up Lee Harvey Oswald as their Patsy, specifically in order to blame the Communists for it. 10. Therefore, knowing that his men would have to clean up a ton of evidence to the contrary, he opted to fight for a Lone Nut theory of the JFK murder. 11. This would rip a victory out of the hands of the Dallas Radical Right -- because they would have no more Communist plot. 12. This would also allow the USA to attain stability of changing a US President during the middle of the Cold War. 13. Hoover proposed this to LBJ, and LBJ decided it was the right thing to do. It became US dogma -- even after a ton of material evidence came crashing down on it. 14. Earl Warren chose to hide thousands of JFK related documents from the American People for 75 years, because of this decision. President GHW Bush changed that date to only 53 years. This year we will finally get to see them all. I expect my CT to be vindicated. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  14. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    Ron, First, you do recognize that we're talking about Ruth Paine's WC testimony where she speaks of moving furniture on the Veterans Day weekend starting the evening of Friday, November 8th, and ending the evening of Monday, November 11th, right? Yet this photograph shows Ruth Paine's living room on November 22nd. It was after the Oswalds and Paines came back from the Dallas Police Department to Ruth Paine's home -- and LIFE magazine was there and took some pictures. So, where is any WC testimony that suggests that Ruth Paine's furniture was frozen in place from Monday, November 11th to Friday, November 22nd? Or -- if your question is simply -- AGAINST WHICH WALL IS RUTH PAINE'S COUCH -- then my response is that her couch is against the North Wall. Not the East. The North. Her front door opened from the South -- toward Ruth Paine's right shoulder in this photo. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  15. I maintain that, for a given conspiracy theory to be viable, it must include a strong motive for the U.S. government to cover up the conspiracy. Otherwise the government would have proceeded to solve the case. In another thread, I asked Paul Trejo what the motive was for the government cover up in his Walker-did-it theory. His reply was that the U.S. government was certain that General Walker was behind the assassination, and that that needed to be covered up because the public wouldn't understand it. I disagreed with the part about the public not understanding an ex-general killing the president. But what struck me was Paul's bold statement, which I quote here: "In my reading, Sandy, the US Government after 1963 knew with a certainty that General Walker's Minutemen and sundry Radical Right forces in Dallas were responsible for the JFK assassination, and trying to blame the Communists like mad." Paul, how do you know that the U.S. government knew "with a certainty" that General Walker was behind the assassination? What evidence is there for that?
  16. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    Chris, Thanks for sharing your theory. I am intrigued by it and would like to know more, for example how Hosty gained possession of the original draft. But, of course, I don't want to interrupt the flow of this topic... again. (Sorry about my earlier OT posts. I just couldn't let Paul Trejo's CIA-did-it attack and Walker-did--it promotion go without being answered.) BTW, I appreciate the timeline (list) you just posted -- the things that transpired at the Paine residence with regard to the Oswald letter. It's useful to see everything at a glance. (Particularly for me because I got behind on my Paine thread reading.) I hope your followup to that will be also be written in a way that can be followed by those of us who don't have a detailed understanding of the material.
  17. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    1. Oswald asked if he could use her typewriter. The only table in the house was in the dining area so that is where he used it to type a paper and a corresponding envelope. I don't want to belabor this point. If everyone agrees that this is correct per Ruth's testimony; that Oswald asked permission to use her typewriter and did so at the dining table, in the kitchen/dining room - I'll just move on. From the FBI's Gemberling Report here is the Serial Number, model, etc. of the typewriter. If anyone can locate those 3 pages of specimens (D121) that would be a nice find, they are MIA in the records, as far as I can tell. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133&search=Ruth_and+121#relPageId=111&tab=page
  18. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    Jim, WTF??? Are you actually implying that I was part of that "charitable cause" business? From your post above, it sure sounds like you're saying you think I was involved in that "charity" stipulation. And if you are suggesting that, you are dead wrong. I never EVER said any such thing regarding any "charitable cause". Maybe some other LNer said that, but I certainly wasn't any part of it. And regarding this comment from your "acquaintance".... "Sorry Jim. It's long gone. I've upgraded computer/hard drives twice since then." ....It sounds as if you must be talking about some private conversation that I supposedly had with McAdams and Reitzes, which I certainly do not recall at all. Was it supposedly a 3-way e-mail discussion of some kind that your "acquaintance" got ahold of and then it was lost when he changed hard drives? Because if your source was talking about ANY conversation I have had with McAdams on the INTERNET, well, that type of discussion would never be "long gone" at all. It would still be there on the Web via McAdams' aaj forum (which is the only place I've ever talked with McAdams, except for a few brief e-mails). All aaj newsgroup posts are archived FOREVER. All it takes is a search of this aaj site and you'll find stuff going back to 1994. So if that's what your source means, then it's not long gone at all. It's still there. I'll admit, my memory is not as good as it used to be, but I have absolutely NO memory at all of any of the conversations you are saying I engaged in. If you can dig up the Internet discussions to prove me wrong, please do. I'd love to see them. But I sure don't recall them. And you definitely have me confused with another LNer regarding that "charitable cause" thing, because that is something I would never have said or done in the first place.
  19. Michael, Chris, Mathias, I will try to make it a simple task for you and others to clearly see that Oswald attended two different schools simultaneously during the Fall semester of his 8th grade school year, 1953/54. Following are what the two school records indicate: Public School #44, New York City 8th Grade, Fall Semester Days Present: 62 + 5 half days Days Absent: 3 + 8 half days Times Late (Tardy): 1 Total Days of School = 62 + 5 + 3 +8 = 78 days This information is highlighted in yellow in the upper school record, below. Beauregard Junior High School, New York City 8th Grade, Fall Semester Days Present: 89 days Days Absent: 1 day Tardy: 0 Total Days of School = 89 + 1 = 90 days This information is highlighted in yellow in the lower school record, below. Comments I encourage each of you to confirm that what I have written above accurately portrays what is indicated in the two school records. Having done that, there should be no question in your minds that the records do indeed show Oswald attending two schools, located in two different states, at the same time for a period of one semester. To zoom in on a document, right-click the image and select View Image. Then hold the CTRL keyboard button down while pressing the + key several times. The Oswald in New York City had a full class schedule, whereas the one in New Orleans took only two classes (General Science and Physical Education). I would guess that either this Oswald had a part time job, or was supervised by a mother who couldn't persuade or force him to take more classesl. School Record: Public School #44, New York City The yellow highlighted row indicates Oswald's attendance during his 8th grade Fall semester (fall 1953). His classes and scores for that semester are given in the right-most column in the middle third of the page. School Record: Beauregard Junior High School, New Orleans The yellow highlighted row indicates Oswald's classes, scores, and attendance during his 8th grade Fall semester (fall 1953). (The second row shows the same for the Winter semester. The third row shows the totals for the full 8th grade school year.)
  20. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    Nothing screwy. I don't see Paul's posts but when you quoted him and provided the link to my earlier thread I saw it because it was within your post. I'm going to tie this in with David Joseph's assertions but I need to "set the stage" so that my own later assertions will be on solid ground.
  21. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    Your post before this shows 37 minutes ago something attributed to me that was by paul. Not your fault I understand. Something screwy with the site regarding quotes?
  22. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    ...about halfway down this page she remarks, "I rearranged it on the evening of the 10th of November -" https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43&relPageId=420 I'm going to come back to this page because we are going to look at the floorplan, CE 430 ,and the notations that Ruth made on that floorplan (which are still visible).
  23. WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?

    Excerpts from the 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS chapt 2 pages 19 & 21 Guy Gabaldon, the casual but cruel ex-Marine, WW2 hero of Saipan, was at any instant in contact with the principals and finanicers of the intrigue, When the name of a Fair Play for Cuba Committee communist was broadcast throughout the rightist circuit after the airing of an August 1963 radio program from station WDSU, New Orleans, Louisiana , Lee Oswald was "selected" by another of our JBS associates , retired U.S. Army General of Dallas Texas. The subject was then chosen by Gabaldon as the "fall guy" in the secretive plot against Kennedy. None of us objected, and found it humorous to frame a communist. I quietly considered it as goofy as the weird , but hazy, arrangements to kill the President. Two other of our anti-Castro, anti-communist associates, Lawrence John "Larry" Howard - AKA Alonzo Escruido, and Loran Eugene "Skip" Hall - AKA Lorenzo Pacillo, were dispatched by Gabaldon to enlist Oswald in the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). In late September 1963 Oswald accompanied the pair to Gabaldon's Mexico City area office. Oswald then received instructions and....funds from the impressive, but "phony CIA officer Gabaldon". The fate of both Oswald and Kennedy were there , forever sealed.
  24. Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

    Here ya go Paul.
  25. The latest from Ruth Paine

    Chris, Here is the account as told by Marina Oswald for the book, Marina and Lee (1977) "She slipped out of the bedroom into the kitchen and dining area, out of the kitchen door, and around the house. She had no trouble finding Hosty's car, and without the smallest feeling of being in a hurry -- "I am a sneaky girl," she laughs -- she walked around and around it, trying to figure out what make it was. This she was unable to do because she could not read English. But she studied the color and memorized the license number. Then she came back into the house." This is Marina Oswald telling Priscilla Johnson McMillan (PJM) who was a freelance writer who sometimes worked for the CIA on a contract basis. She was a capable writer, so good for her. But for Marina and Lee (1977) PJM was trying to make some real publishing money -- so she makes contract with Marina Oswald to review the thousand plus pages of her Warren Commission testimony, and rearrange it to read like a novel, so that Mr. and Mrs. American Consumer would buy it. Marina, it turns out, has no imagination. She repeats again and again what she already told the Warren Commission. Plus, her English is still a little slow. Priscilla wants that money -- so she pulls an interviewer/interviewee relationship on Marina, and tries to get her to tell more. So, we get little snippiets like this -- details that do not contradict her WC testimony but add detail. Marina admitted to the WC that she snuck out of Ruth Paine's house and memorized Hosty's license plate number -- as instructed by LHO. To Priscilla she added the details -- from this room to htis room through this door then out the back. "I'm a sneaky girl!" Marina walks around and around Hosty's car -- what make is it -- I can't read English? I don't know! Too bad!\ So she goes back into the house through the back Is there anybody anywhere that fails to see the simplicity and plausibility of this? Why do people refuse to believe it? Because they can't get out of their minds the obsession that Priscilla McMillan is a CIA agent. OK, what CIA evil is Priscilla plotting? Well, we don't know, but we can't believe anything anybody says as long as she's around! So, that the status. Y''all asked the question -- how did Marina Oswald get Hosty's car license number? Marina told you in detail. But PJM was present -- so you reject the whole answer. The answer is there. It's an easy answer. You just refuse to accept it. So sad. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  26. John McAdams Loses...AGAIN!

    If you recall earlier, DVP did his usual puzzled expression about me accusing him of being in communication with McAdams, and Reitzes about who would debate Rossley on Anton Batey's radio show. Which I figured he would do. Let me explain how I come across such information. Years ago, when I was naive enough to actually debate DVP on a regular basis, many lurkers used to enjoy watching DVP get clobbered on a regular basis. They came to dislike DVP so much that I got a whole platoon of informants all over the web. One of them witnessed the discussion mentioned above. After DVP went into his automatic "denial mode" I emailed this acquaintance. I will list the brief discussion below, leaving his name out of course. My email was headlined "DVP, Reitzes and McAdams". I then asked the following. "Do you recall sending me that conversation between them about who would debate Rossley on Batey's show?" This was the reply. "Sorry Jim. It's long gone. I've upgraded computer/hard drives twice since then." But he recalled the conversation and sending it to me. Which proves it happened. In fact, he also named a fourth party to them that I forgot. Now, as per the whole Carlier, Reitzes and DVP attempt to first, sign up, and then attack me on this forum many years ago, consider the following. At the time I joined, neither Reitzes nor DVP was on, since Davey Boy had been kicked off for his usual belligerent comments. (Which also got him kicked out of Lancer.) When I noted that it was funny that they had signed on and joined with Francis Carlier, who was already on but not very active, in order to go after me, someone else wrote words to the effect: I don't think that was coincidence Jim. They are afraid of you. It later turned out that once i joined, DVP begged John SImkin to let him back on and had to agree to certain behavior modifications to be allowed back on. But there was another problem to their scheming. Len Osanic had challenged them to debate me on BOR and they both, along with Gary Mack, had said no. So they felt that they had to make up an excuse as to why they would confront me here, but not directly in open debate. They came up with something really silly. They both said they would debate me if a contribution to a charitable cause of their was made. And it was no small amount either. It was in the four figures. So when DVP writes that somehow what I said about this was nothing more than a fevered dream, that is more of his bunk. He is, well, prevaricating. He did both things and is now trying to hide his tracks about them. Which tells us reams about the man.
  27. WHEN does Oswald crystallize into the patsy?

    Baloney. Although somebody impersonated Oswald over the Cuba Consulate telephone to the Soviet Embassy -- the Lopez Report offers a complete account of it. Yet Lee Harvey Oswald was also in Mexico City, and also submitting his Fake FPCC resume to the Cuban Consulate. The Lopez Report shows you the Fake FPCC resume. Take a good look. So the history shows BOTH happened -- Oswald was in Mexico City AND somebody impersonated him there (briefly). Regards, --Paul Trejo
  1. Load more activity
×