• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! DETAILS HERE:

      We are opening registration!! If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We require you use your real name, a valid email address, and your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. Additionally, you will have to send us your photo for use as an avatar and submit a brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Pat Speer

Moderators
  • Content count

    5,566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Pat Speer

  • Rank
    Moderator

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

54,919 profile views
  1. The third episode on Oswald in New Orleans was supposed to be shown Tuesday night, but was not. And it's not listed as coming up any time in the next few weeks. The show is already in the can, and has a limited rum. It's hard to believe they would cancel it, no matter how awful the ratings. Was it shown anywhere in the country? Was it "canceled" at the request of...? Does anyone know?
  2. My God! Part 2 was even worse! They interviewed Oleg Nechiporenko regarding Oswald's activities in Moscow, and pretended to stumble upon the fact Nechiporenko met Oswald in Mexico City, and could verify Oswald met with Kostikov! Nechiporenko wrote a book about this, what? 25 years ago? They then discuss Silvia Duran's arrest, and re-enact their "discovery" Duran never testified before the WC. They totally conceal that this was Warren's call, and that he made this call against the request of Slawson, Coleman, etc. They then use the fact she won't talk to them as evidence she was hiding Oswald's contact with Cubans. This was clearly their agenda all along. I mean, they have a pre-planned meeting with Nechiporenkp, who helps them "discover" Oswald's erratic behavior when meeting with the Russians, but show up unannounced with a camera crew at Duran's apartment, and take from her refusal to meet with them that she's hiding something.
  3. At the beginning of the program Baer explained his interest. He said he'd had a long-time interest in the case, and that he was willing to accept that Oswald was the only shooter, but wondered if Oswald hadn't been inspired by someone else, or had had some backers. This suggested that Baer was the inspiration for the program--and that he approached the Hunting Hitler people about doing a program on Oswald. After introducing Baer, moreover, the program introduced some other people tasked with helping him in his investigation. They made the claim they'd created a data base whereby they could do what no one else had ever done--search Oswald's CIA records en masse. They then made out that they were the first ones to make the connection between "Kostin" and Kostikov, and that the CIA's records indicating they'd realized Kostin was Kostikov, and that Kostikov had worked with assassins, had not been revealed to the Warren Commission, and was new information. They were lying, pure and simple. The CIA's records indicate they'd told the WC about Kostikov, but that this was done unofficially. They then asked the FBI if they should do it officially, to which the answer was presumably a "no". I'd betcha almost anything that most of the information they "discovered" in the program they "discovered" by reading articles and performing searches on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. So why not admit as much? Oh yeah, that would be admitting they'd learned something from a "conspiracy" website, and that "conspiracy" websites are way way ahead of The History Channel on all things JFK.
  4. I may be spacing, but I seem to recall that the MCMM's identity was revealed in the Lopez report. Am I tripping?
  5. Except Bob Baer is not a kid. He's a veteran CIA operative. I really don't want to think the show was deliberate disinfo, but heck, that makes as much sense as Baer honestly believing the Russian and/or Cuban government wanted Kennedy dead, knowing full well they would be blamed. It's also alarming, in my opinion, that the show has mentioned LBJ's creating the Warren Commission to de-escalate the situation, but is yet to mention the numerous instances in which propaganda or disinfo agents were employed to make it look like the Cuban government was involved. I mean, I smelled a rat at the beginning, when they discussed Hoover's 11-23 call to Johnson without noting Hoover suspected Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City. P.S. Larry, your assumption is correct. As I recall, they tied Oswald to the Harlandale house and that house to Alpha 66.
  6. Perhaps the most irritating part of the show, for me, was the way they kept comparing U.S.--Russia relations in the 60's to U.S.--ISIS relations today. That's absurd. Al Qaeda and ISIS have openly attacked American troops--we are at war with them. Their leaders' names are on hit lists. This is nothing like U.S.--Russia relations in the 60's. It's like comparing chess to cage-fighting. Both are competitions. But only one is likely to end in bloodshed.
  7. No, they talked about it. In the second half as I recall. They said Oswald had been linked to Alpha 66, which was riddled with Castro informers, and that as a result Castro almost certainly knew about the assassination before it happened...but did nothing. The program failed to point out that if Castro knew about it through Alpha 66, he would have known as well that they planned on framing him for the killing. So...sorry...that doesn't fly...
  8. After reading the interview of Baer in time, I feel sick. He's trying to tie Oswald to Alpha 66, and Alpha 66 to Castro. The whole thing feels like a disinfo piece designed to undermine Veciana's just released book. I mean, think about it. Veciana's take: Oswald had a CIA handler, who asked Veciana to help tie Oswald to Castro. Baer and the History Channel's take: Oswald was tied to Alpha 66, which kept Castro in the loop regarding Oswald's activities. This is how it's done people. When someone points the finger at the CIA, someone (with a bigger budget) pops up to point it back at them. Orwell was a prophet.
  9. This is big time BS. They are pretending no one looked into Oswald's trip to Mexico City. They are equating Oswald's meeting with a Russian at the Soviet Embassy with someone' meeting with ISIS or Al Qaeda. What hooey! We weren't at war with Russia in 1963. They had no reason to kill Kennedy. I liked Bob Baer after reading through his book and seeing him interviewed on TV. But this is just awful. I mean, c'mon, they are pretending the Johnson/Hoover conversation from 11-23 is "newly declassified". They show the conversation with blacked out sections (that aren't blacked out on the actual document) and occasionally show the audience what's beneath the blacked-out areas. Even worse, they have Hoover saying there's something odd about Oswald's trip to Mexico--but fail to tell the audience what he believed was odd--that he believed Oswald had been impersonated! And that's not the worst of it. They actually show Bob Baer realizing for the first time that Kostin is Kostikov, and acting as if this is a shocking revelation that has only recently been discovered due to the recent declassification of CIA documents! Never mind that those dreaded conspiracy theorists have been discussing this stuff for decades. This show couldn't be any more insulting if it tried.
  10. Good job, Andrej. I was going to recommend Alberto match the width of the rifle barrel in the Day photo to the width of the rifle barrel in the FBI photo, and lay this over a version of the Day photo that has been matched to the FBI photo by the width of the rifle butt. That should tell you if the apparent differences can be explained by the rifle's being at a different angle in the Day photo. If some of the features in the FBI photo are grossly at odds with either version of the Day photo...you have a different rifle.
  11. I'm not sure if anyone's done any deep digging into Holland's background, Jim, beyond that Holland's written articles for the CIA. I know you know about this look at Holland: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/max-holland-rescues-the-warren-commission-and-the-nation And I think I told you about this one: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-mr-holland-s-colossal-blunder My take on Max is that he's a conservative historian, not all that different from a number of other inside-the-beltway insiders...who desperately wants to believe it was Oswald all by his lonesome.
  12. Thanks for the heads-up, Joe. I take my son to the Monterey Bay Aquarium almost every year, and have been telling myself I should stop by the Defense Language Institute to see if they have any records for Oswald, or Hidel, etc. Apparently, that would have been a waste of time. Thanks. Next time I'll be able to head straight to Old Capitol Books and Rosine's without feeling that I should be over at DLI.
  13. FWIW, I seem to remember reading a discussion (Was it in Mrs. Paine's Garage?) of the "We both know who's responsible" comment in which the Paines insisted the reference was to Marina, and that they'd both felt Marina had played head games with Lee that had contributed to his instability.
  14. I talked to Jenkins about this in both 2013 and 2015. He does indeed believe the hole on the head extended to the back of the head. But the top of the back of the head, not the bottom--where way too many CTs want to believe there was a "blow-out" wound. To be clear, in 2013 Jenkins showed me...and Aguilar, and Mantik, and Tink Thompson if I recall...where he believed the skull was shattered beneath the scalp, and where the scalp above this shattered skull was intact. And he pointed out the area behind his right ear on the back of his head. He was claiming, therefore, that there was no blow-out wound where Mantik and others claim there was a blow-out wound. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins again in 2015, with a young researcher (and writer) in attendance. He told us the same thing. When asked (I think by myself but perhaps by the young writer) why he didn't say anything when Mantik and Horne, etc, claimed him as a witness for something he insists he never witnessed, he said something along the lines of "People will believe what they want to believe...what'cha gonna do?" P.S. I just looked and Jenkins told Purdy the head wound stretched from the middle-temporal region back to the occipital." That's pretty much what he told me.