All Activity

Ok, so I have reposted above the images originally posted. I used the link you proposed, and I chose the "direct link" option. Crossing my fingers now...

What evidence implicating Oswald are you talking about, Sandy? They murdered Oswald about 45 hours after the JFKA precisely because they knew they could not prove he did it in court. They couldn't let him talk to a lawyer. And of course they knew he didn't do it. Johnson chose to go with the lone nut story because he wanted no part in blaming Cuba or Russia, not because it was somehow the easy choice. He knew the problems with the lone nut story up front; he didn't discover them later. His job was to paper over them. The same question goes for your claim that there was evidence implicating Cubs and Russia.

Hi.. Thks, I'll try it...

..Yep, I think I will resort to that if I can't solve that link problem. Do you know if there is a limit for the number of people having access to it? Let me know... Because, for understandable reasons, the field of photo analysis in the JFKA is today considered somewhat irrelevant, I wanted to show in the thread, by displaying some results, that this research is very different from has been done in the past. It is about applying 21st Century tools and method while approaching the record not as photographic sets, but as batch of data. All previous analysis of the record were based on enhancing specific details of an image. Thus, someone would "see" something in an image, and then redraw and/or color it to "revel" his interpretation to the viewer. This is not at all what is done here: full pictures or frames are processed (or large segments), applying known methods of problem solving used to reduce uncertainty/unknowns in finite data sets. As it happens, uncertainty/unknowns in pixel data sets are expressed as blur, i.e. uncertainty about the exact boundaries between groups of pixels of different value. So the process is simply applying well-established tools of data processing to the specific sub group of pixel. When I conceptualized this (1998), and looked for any scientific application (I was quite sure I had merely rediscover something long-known of specialists in the field), I was quite surprised I could not find anything. But a few years later I did... I will conclude this "Decoding Dallas" presentation with a segment about "The Science Behind the Results", where I will show to those interested that the process I propose is not "Voodoo Science" and the results presented not an exercise in pareidolia. On the contrary... Well, let me try to solve that lik problem now. Thanks to all members who are trying to help....

SL: The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets. It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one. RO: A great deal of effort? This is the CIA with virtually unlimited resources and no one effectively watching what they did. Plots were hatched, adjusted and abandoned all the time. You don't know about most of them. But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions. Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier. SL: To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted. RO: It was an operation backed by the military, but not primarily run by them. But your history is a bit off. By late '63 intelligence was saying the Soviets had caught up with the US. Kennedy had gotten Congress to pass the limited nuclear test ban treaty with them. The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction was taking hold. Only a fool, or Curtis Lemay, would thing a nuclear war with the Soviets that neither side could win was a good idea. Certainly not Lyndon Johnson. To me, it's axiomatic that Johnson would not risk blowing up the presidency he had lusted after for so long in a nuclear war with the Soviets. You can argue he gave the war machine their war in Vietnam that Kennedy was going to end as a sop, a substitute, if you want. I think he was going to do that anyway. He told McNamara he never agreed with Kennedy's withdrawal plan but kept his mouth shut. I said early on Johnson made clear to the others he would not go after Cuba. But I don't know when he did that except it was likely before the murder was done. In any case, Johnson squelched the Cuba idea right after becoming president and pursuit of Oswald the lone nut began. The anti Cuban zealots had no recourse. SL: Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory). RO: No, the coverup had nothing to do with something Harriman said. It was a *necessary* part of the killers' plan to get away with the murder, and so implemented by them! SL: Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence. RO: The coverup was complicated by the fact that the killers' story deviated so clearly from how the murder was done. Which is why the others needed Johnson as president to deal with the problems caused by the autopsy, films, the investigation, etc. SL: But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.) RO: No the Cuban invasion was the preferred option of only one faction. It was a crazy idea and easily dealt with.

Whatever informaton came from Mexico, it needed to be tripple checked. Like the mystery man capture, first reported to be 10/1 later turned out to be captured on 10/2 when Oswald was on his way home. Even without a cover-up, a possible mole, talks of a shady money deal, pouches with transcripts or tapes, parties, an elderly woman with bad eyesight handling the observation camera,... it sure was a messy bit.. Deliberate?

Can anyone explain why Lisa Howard went so far to oppose Robert F. Kennedy in the 1964 election for United States senator from New York as to join “Democrats for Keating” to support RFK’s Republican opponent Kenneth Keating who was a hawk on Cuba? Her public support for Keating cost Howard her job with ABC and set back her career so it was obviously something she felt strongly about. This would appear to be inconsistent with seeking genuine rapprochement with Cuba. Was RFK an opponent of an opening to Cuba? https://www.nytimes.com/1964/09/29/archives/democrats-form-a-keating-group-120-liberals-say-kennedy-is-using.html

Hi.. Thanks for your interest in this. I will try the hosting link you shared... Ok, have uploaded a file: there are several options: "Link", "Direct Link, "Hot Link". Which one should I choose?

I have only been able to view 1 picture on this thread,and I still need a decoder.

I just read this Bill Simpich document: https://aarclibrary.org/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-10-nightmare-in-mexico-city/ It verifies that Boris Tarasoff did indeed recognize the broken Russian caller's voice to be the same in both the Sept. 28 and Oct. 1 calls. In the Sept. 28 call, from the?Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy, Duran hands the phone to Oswald and he speaks but doesn't give his name. In the Oct. 1 call, to the Soviet Embassy, Oswald makes the call himself and this time he does leave his name. In this call he says that he had been to the Soviet Embassy earlier. So the second call tells Boris right away that Lee Oswald had been to the Soviet Embassy. The voice is the same as that in the first call, which came from the Cuban Consulate. So Boris deduces that Lee Oswald had been to the Cuban Consulate as well! BUT HERE'S THE RUB... The first call, on Sept. 28 -- the one initiated by Duran and handed over to Oswald -- could not have really been made from the Cuban Consulate because that was a Saturday and the consulate was closed on Saturday! In addition, Duran said that she did not make that call! (I believe she said she never even saw Oswald after Friday the 27th.) So apparently that call was made by a woman who wasn't Duran, and it was made from a location that wasn't the Cuban Consulate! So where does that leave us? In a sense, we are back to where we started... there being no credible evidence in the phone calls indicating that Oswald had been to the Cuban Consulate. On the other hand, as far as the telephone intercept teams knew, Oswald had indeed been to both the Soviet Embassy AND the Cuban consulate! Therefore, I believe we have to conclude that the CIA's Mexican Desk did indeed keep to themselves the information that Oswald had been to the Cuban Consulate. And that is egg on my face.

I think the open section in the window https://youtu.be/CpFPJ-hjVZ8?si=Y8u2S2MHC4qY6PhR Above is just an example from youtube (I have nothing to do with comments on/in it) However... could be the upper part? Not sure

Houston Chronicle April 26, 2024 ALL HELD IN AUSTIN PROTEST RELEASED All of the demonstrators arrested Wednesday at a pro-Palestinian protest on the University of Texas at Austin campus have had their [misdemeanor criminal trespass] charges dropped, officials and lawyers said. That included a cameraman with FOX 7 Austin who was arrested after appearing to have tripped and fallen onto a group of state troopers.

Christian, can you orient us as to what we're looking at? Thank you.

Very early on there was evidence pointing to Oswald as the perp. There was also evidence pointing to Cuba and Russia (as well as Oswald) as the perps. Johnson didn't want anything to do with the conspiracy angle that would lead to international consequences... like war. After all, Hoover said that the evidence for the conspiracy was far from solid. So Johnson did the easy thing and chose to accept the lone gunman evidence. Later he would discover that the lone gunman solution wasn't so great after all... because it wasn't correct. Which meant that the FBI and WC had to lie there heads off to make it all work out.

There is this page from 1976, HSCA, about their chats with the Tarasoffs. Tarasoff says elsewhere in this document that he was never asked about the Oswald conversations again. The clear sense is, without it being explicit, that the Mexico City office DID know the identity of the 1st caller before the assassination. Presumably this would mean that they knew in early October that Oswald had been at the Cuban consulate. But the transcripts we have don't quite match up to the memories of the Tarasoffs.

Oops, I should have read more carefully. You do see the problem. Well, then, my prior post is for other people reading the thread.

Do we know what is the first CIA document which states/realizes that Oswald had been to cuban consulate and CIA hq realize "Oh crap, Oswald was at the cuban consulate too in Mexico City"? The above document i linked to above gives no appearance of surprise that Oswald had been to the cuban consulate too, and that he had actually made a phonecall from there to the soviet embassy on the Saturday. On the Friday, after Oswald had come back from the soviet embassy to the cuban embassy, Silvia Duran phoned the soviet embassy to discuss the guy she had just sent over to them. This would appear to set up quiet a history of this guy Oswald going back and forth from the cuban to the soviet embassy for the telephone surveillance crew.

JD: Roger: in your last sentence, the first part is accurate. Alsop did have a very strong part in convincing LBJ to form the Warren Commission, and that is clearly documented by Donald GIbson in his milestone essay in the book The Assassinations. RO: I, and others, have listened to a tape of the Alsop phone call secretly recorded by Johnson. There's no need for its existence to be "documented" by Gibson or anyone else. I'm going to assume you accept the idea that the purpose of the WC, as shown by what it did, was not to uncover the truth of what happened but to conceal it. To cover up the role of the killers and blame someone else. Once Oswald was murdered, eliminating a trial, there was going to have to be an official investigation of the murder. When did this simple idea get turned into a vehicle for covering up the murder framing Oswald? And by whom? Was that Alsop's purpose in suggesting the idea to Johnson? Was he part of the coverup? No? Was does it mean to you that within one week after the murder Johnson announced the WC and named 6 figureheads and Allen Dulles to run it? And that the WC was staffed by lawyers--and no investigators worthy of the name--to selectively sift through the evidence, and lie about things when necessary, to build a blatantly false case against Oswald? Doesn't that indicate the idea for an investigation had already been turned into that nefarious a vehicle? Have you read Salandria's indictment of this process in his false mystery speech in '98? The WC was Johnson's creation. Who was responsible for turning it into a vehicle to frame Oswald, if not him?, That's the important question, not whose idea the WC was in the first place. Though I don't believe it for a minute I could almost accept that the WC was not originally Johnson's idea. That he was some kind of empty vessel that had to be convinced by Alsop. Almost. But It's clear to me that just as the murder required a coverup plan to be in place before the shots were fired, essential parts of that coverup were the murder of Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer and the creation of an official investigation to hide what happened and blame Oswald. The planners must have considered what that investigation would be before themurder. The existence of the Alsop call proves nothing. We know about it because Johnson wanted us to know. He wanted you to believe creating the commission that framed Oswald was someone else's idea. Similarly, we don't know about some of the other things Johnson said and did that weekend. Or anything about what Dulles was doing at the CIA hideout in Virginia. JD: The last part is in all likliehood not true. I think that after the fact LBJ realized what a joke it was to put Dulles on that Commission and he felt the need to blame someone he despised. RO: It's certainly false, but not for the reason you offer. Appointing Dulles was not a joke. It was necessary to conceal the CIA from scrutiny and keep the investigators focused on their job. Dulles was the only commissioner without a full time job. Claiming the appointment was Bobby's idea was one of the last pathetic ploys of an old man to try to protect his reputation and throw off anyone sniffing around his culpability. Btw, I have developed some of the points here more fully in the the thread I started, Why LBJ was an essential participant in the plan the murder Kennedy. I sense you may disagree with at least some of it. If so, I would appreciate reading your comments.

Okay, but that doesn't tell us anything relevant to the topic of this thread. Because it is dated after the assassination. On October 9, the clandestine telephone intercept teams reported that Lee Oswald had visited the Russian Embassy at the end of September. But they didn't say a word about him visiting the Cuban Consulate. The question is, why? The answer is because the person talking on the phone only used the name Oswald in one call. And that was a a call to the Soviet Embassy. In the call, "Oswald" said that he had been to the Soviet Embassy earlier. That's how the telephone intercept team knew that Oswald had been to the Soviet Embassy. But there was no way of knowing he had also been to the Cuban Consulate.

Douglas Feinglass is Boris Tarasoff, and the present tense is used as if Tarasoff had just recently been asked.

I still haven't seen a single image you've posted. You should consider using this free image hosting website. I've been using it for years with no problem: https://imgbb.com/

The below Nov 23rd 1963 document says the person doing the transcribing knew that the person who phoned the soviet embassy on Oct 1st speaking broken russian was the same person who had phoned the soviet embassy on Sept 28th from the cuban embassy speaking broken russian. Therefore the transcriptionist knew Oswald had been to the cuban embassy. Now, when the transcriptionist knew this is not clear. Did they know this at the time they made the transcription or is this something they figured out on Nov 23rd when listening back to the audio tape (an audio tape that was supposed to have been destroyed)? LINK: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=44666#relPageId=4

You are telling me nothing I do not know. Judge the credibility of Jim Marrs and Sen. Ralph Yarborough however you wish.

Zionism's Expired Shelf-Life: Why Naomi Klein is right that it has become Pharaoh (juancole.com)

Makes sense to me. Use the mole to send disinformation.