Jump to content
The Education Forum

Al Fordiani

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Al Fordiani

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

5,914 profile views
  1. I am currently reading Bagley's book, Spy Wars, and Bagley goes deeply into his Nosenko dealings. Now, like every published spook, I'm sure Bagley tells lies; however Bagley surely comes across as knowledgeable and credible in his assessment that Nosenko was a false defector. I believe him on this point. Now....I'm not sure how that makes the JFK assassination a KGB plot! That is a long leap. It was Crown that announced Oswald as the lone assassin....Secret Service ID's and military intelligence in Dealey Plaza....
  2. One last post from me on this thread. I am now in danger of just basically repeating myself, so I will check out of this thread. I agree that the "watch the crazy guy" hypothesis fits very well for the KGB reaction to Oswald. But it does not fit the known facts of the 1959 or 1963 CIA interest. It just doesn't. As per Jane Roman: "...this SAS group [Special Affairs Staff] would have held all the information on Oswald under their tight control." "Yeah, I mean I’m signing off on something that I know isn’t true.” "To me its indicative of a keen interest in Oswald held very closely [by the SAS] on the need to know basis.” "There has to be a point for withholding information from Mexico City." (bold added) If the CIA interest in Oswald is merely routine "watch the crazy guy" then why would anything be compartmentalized in the SAS (an operational group) and information disseminated only on a need to know basis? If the CIA interest in Oswald was merely "watch the crazy guy" then why would the covert operations people (Karamessines) LIE to his own people in the Mexico City Station? It is not even close to adding up! It cannot simply be routine. There has to be a point! And the 1959 defection, we've been over. No 201 file was opened for over a year, which everyone, including Richard Helms, admits there is no explanation for if Oswald was a true defector. While agreed that analyzing the routing of the Oswald information in 1959 takes interpretation, and agreed that I am no expert, it seems relatively elementary to me that if information on a supposed defector to the USSR is being withheld from the Soviet Russia Division, something is up. And I do count Newman as an intelligence expert. Newman and Morley did not start out as JFK conspiracy theorists. Newman's research led him to that conclusion. Morley as well is someone who can hardly be called a zealot....so who qualifies as someone with "no dog in the fight?" I am confident that such a "consensus" will be reached. But it will still be ignored by many..... To the larger point of your thread about CT mentality: I have been reading posts on this forum for over 10 years. Yes, I have read all the claims of "disinfo agent" and seen the members that would entertain any theory as valid so long as it furthered their agenda or had a conspiracy bent. I agree that it does get ridiculous at times. But let's not kid ourselves: many lone nut believers are as bad or worse than any of the CT'ers, zealots in the extreme. There have been and are LN posters on this forum that are just rude and divisive and add zero useful information. In the bigger picture, the number of times that I personally have been ridiculed over the last 40+ years...well, maybe it shouldn't, but it really gets old and it takes a toll, and at times people here react with exasperated emotion. Some of the LN posters on this forum enjoy bringing this exasperated emotion out of people; it's their only purpose (besides derailing legitimate threads), and it's just childish and pathetic. Pathetic. So, Mr. Payette, would a LN'er like you ever call out a LN'er's trollish behavior like a fair-minded person would? Or do you just want to point out your perceived inadequacies of the CT crowd? I would love to see the tenor of the debates here be more professional. I try to model that behavior myself. But it is an internet forum, so it is what it is.
  3. Great. Thank you. I think that the more we stay away from loaded terms, the more useful the debate. I am trying to see your point here, but I don't. Nosenko defected to the US in 1964. The whole Nosenko affair was much bigger than just Oswald and involved the very biggest issues and questions within the US counterintelligence community about Soviet penetrations, whether Golitsyn and Fedora were legitimate, etc.; as I said a terribly complex mess. Sure, the Oswald stuff was part of it, but by then Oswald is dead (so bringing in Oswald instead of brutalizing Nosenko is not a choice, eh?) As to debriefing Oswald upon return to the US, I am already on record as being incredulous that the CIA claims not to have done so. I don't know the answer to that question. But from about 1:00 PM November 22, 1963 Oswald was "radioactive" to everyone; which person in the CIA or any organization would admit to having a covert relationship with Oswald? Even if Bagley (or others) knew of CIA association with Oswald, would you expect then to come forward and admit it? Out of his way? As indicated, Blunt took an opportunity to ask Bagley what he thought. Bagley answered. How is that going out of his way? You are really hung up on this. The proof of his false defection is in the documentary record, not in the circumstantial evidence of his behavior. I would agree Oswald's activities are relevant in figuring out what his purpose was as a false defector. But in the face of the documentary evidence, they are irrelevant to proving whether he was a false defector or not. You are an attorney, so you understand this. Your issue here is that you can't seem to figure out what Oswald's purpose entering the USSR might have been. You seem to be under the impression that the only purpose of a false defector would be to gather intelligence. There may be other purposes, and several respected researchers (respected at least by many if not by you) have hypotheses as to Oswald's purpose (sabotaging the summit is not one of them). I refer you again to Newman if you are interested. (Remember what was told to Dan Hardway of the HSCA: "a useful idiot".) Questionable documents? I ask this with all seriousness: Do you seriously doubt the provenance of the released Oswald CIA documents and routing information used by Newman? The 1963 documents and routing were verified by Jane Roman herself who handled the originals contemporaneously!! Is this not convincing provenance? Is Jane Roman a discredited witness? Richard Helms himself did not question the veracity of the "amazing" date of the opening of Oswald's 201 file. Is this not convincing provenance? Is Richard Helms a discredited witness? Why didn't Jane Roman or Richard Helms dispute the veracity of the documents? Newman's first work Oswald and the CIA has been out for years. I have not seen one instance where the genuineness of documents themselves have been questioned. You seem to be a thoughtful, intelligent person, but your characterization of these documents as "questionable" is just weak. If you don't accept Newman's credentials to have an informed opinion on this (again, executive assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency) or Jane Roman's, then who would you accept? (As to dubious hearsay, without comment on whether I believe Bagley made the statement to Blunt, I've already stipulated that Bagley's words are unnecessary to make the case. And whether or not Wilcott is telling the truth has nothing to do with any of my facts or arguments. And please tell me, what is the "dark, sinister speculation" that I have engaged in?) If the facts are not on your side, argue the law. If the law is not on your side, argue that facts. If neither is on your side pound the table? You have now resorted to pounding the table.
  4. Your understanding and mine are the same here. I am familiar with this through Newman as cited above. My understanding is that Mr. DiEugenio has had correspondence with Mr. Blunt on this matter (and on the aforementioned matter of Ms. Wolf of the HSCA). My understanding is that Mr. Blunt gave a presentation at the 2018 Lancer Conference on his relationship with Bagley. I was not at the conference (although I would have liked to have been) and I don't know if Mr. Blunt's presentation is recorded anywhere that we have access to. Maybe someone here can add something. Your use of the word "zealot" seems pejorative in this context which strikes me as patently unfair. Are all people who search for the facts and the truth somehow tainted? Have you met Mr. Blunt? Prying the truth out of an organization like the CIA clearly takes dogged determination, so are you automatically a "zealot?" Should we not applaud the efforts of men like Mr. Blunt? You may claim that you didn't mean it in a pejorative manner, but given the whole thrust of your thread here, that wouldn't ring true. Now you must know that Mr. Bagley ended up having a close relationship with his long-time USSR counterpart and rival, Sergey A. Kondrashev. That might seem impossible, but it happened. So I don't find it much of a stretch that Bagley had a relationship with Mr. Blunt, especially once he saw that Blunt was someone who did his homework. But the main point here is that the CIA documents exist without Bagley. So this "bombshell" is not dependent on Bagley or on Blunt's relationship with him. Let's face it, when Richard Helms was confronted with the fact that Oswald's 201 file wasn't opened until 13 months after his "defection," I believe his quote (this is from memory) was, "I'm amazed." Of course Helms was not going to admit that Oswald was an agent of the CIA; but neither could he provide a credible alternative. The point is that to a seasoned intelligence professional, like Bagley or Newman (or John "Scelso" Whitten for that matter), it is clearly evident, obvious, that Oswald's defection was pre-planned and prepared for by the CIA. Agreed that this is a major conclusion. But I strongly disagree that the evidence is "exceedingly thin." Just the opposite. The documents and the routing records of those documents exist (surely you do not doubt that.) They tell the story. The evidence is, in fact, robust. Well, now as you know, to answer this I must conjecture, which I am for the most part reluctant to do. (A typical LN response would be to counter the conjecture as if that counters the underlying facts.) I believe that there are a couple of factors in play. Certainly, many in the CIA would by natural first reaction focus on the enemy, the USSR and KGB. I also believe that certain members of the CIA would encourage this focus to direct attention away from themselves. (After all, this focus was manifested in Johnson's (lying) warning to Warren.) The Nosenko matter is a complex one wherein no one knows the whole truth, would you not agree? The "Oswald concern" comes I believe from the fact that Nosenko offered up his Oswald information freely. I can certainly believe that Nosenko was sent by the KGB with the message that they had nothing to do with Oswald. (At that time, who wanted anything to do with Oswald?) I believe that like all good counterintelligence officers, Nosenko told a tale full of both truth and fiction. As to Bagley's contemporaneous knowledge of Oswald's defection I do not know. As to the lack of debriefing of Oswald when he returned to the US, well you are making my point: a man threatens to reveal secrets to the Soviets and then is welcomed back to the US without any debriefing at all? That surely doesn't add up in a true defector scenario. Irrelevant. The document trail is proof whether Oswald fits your picture or not. Maybe it is you that don't understand what the various missions might be. Maybe Oswald was terrible at his mission. Irrelevant to the main point.
  5. Sure I can humor you. To be sure, I don't agree with quite everything that you said above about Oswald and his dreams and motivations, but for the purposes of this debate, fine. The "watch this crazy guy" hypothesis can absolutely explain the KGB reaction to Oswald, no question there. And that is exactly what they did, bugging him, interviewing him with undercover KGB personnel. And I think that, yes, they were happy to be rid of him. But the "watch the crazy guy'" hypothesis cannot explain what was happening within the CIA either in 1959 or 1963. Regardless of who or what Oswald really was, even if he is the crazy unstable Marxist that you say he is, the internal documentary record of the CIA tells the story -- not fourth-hand hearsay, the actual CIA documents -- and that story is completely incompatible with Oswald as true defector in 1959 and incompatible with Oswald as just someone to be watched in 1963. [In fact, wasn't Oswald removed from the watch list in fall 1963?] So regardless of how unsuitable that you or I might believe Oswald was to be used in a CIA operation, that is exactly what happened in both 1959 and 1963. The opening and handling of his files and the routing of information about him within the CIA demonstrate the CIA was using Oswald in some operational way. In 1959, the system to handle Oswald information was set up before the defection (otherwise there would have been no way to cut the Soviet Division out of the loop). And in 1963, information on Oswald was already under need-to-know control in the Special Affairs Staff before Oswald's (or his imposter's) contact with the Cuban and Soviet embassies (as indicated by Karamessines controlling the cable of lies to MC station). Maybe you might question the operational competency of the CIA in using someone like Oswald. But the fact that they did use him is just that, a fact ("a useful idiot" is a quote that I remember from somewhere). And in the end for the plotters, that seemed to work out pretty well........ (and as for John Newman and his work on Christian religion: completely irrelevant to this discussion. He was deeply involved in the US intelligence system and is an acknowledged expert in intelligence documents and communications.) If there is something new, then I will attempt to reply (although I am going to be swamped at work soon). But I really hate just repeating and repeating....
  6. So I really don't want to get into a pissing match; and frankly I really don't have the time. From HSCA Volume IX: (104) The Secret Service's alteration of the original Dallas Police Department motorcycle deployment plan prevented the use of maximum possible security precautions. The straggling of Haygood and Baker, on the right rear area of the limousine, weakened security that was already reduced due to the rearward deployment of the motorcycles and to the reduction of the number of motorcycles originally intended for use. [Bold added] So we can argue about what was "normal," but the fact remains that the Secret Service reduced the motorcycle deployment as proposed by the DPD. Here is Houston the day before. Six motorcycles flanking the Presidential car (and many more deployed front and back). Surrounding the car, not told to hold back behind, like in Dallas.
  7. Mr. Von Pein, Motorcycles surrounding the limo reduced from 8 to 4. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Previous post edited. My main point remains.
  8. To reply: I am not at all interested in a pissing contest. And some of the disrespect hurled around this (and every other internet forum) I personally find distasteful. However, the forum is about debate. You may have vented your spleen, but you did not in fact address the most salient of my points. I understand what you say about some conspiracy believers -- like those who believe that we didn't really go to the moon -- but what drives me crazy about most of the WC defender/LN crowd is their refusal to 1) deal with inconvenient facts; and 2) look at nuances to see the broad pattern. But to get to the point, here are the most important things things from my last post the you did not address: Oswald and the CIA: you just brush this away by saying Oswald was, well, just too goofy, so it couldn't be true. Problem is certain facts remain. 1). The internal CIA handling of Oswald documents relating to his defection were highly, highly irregular if Oswald was indeed a true defector; in fact the handling is completely unexplainable. The nuances of all this is beyond the scope of this post, but see John Newman, former assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, and his book Countdown to Darkness. When the documents and their routing were shown to legendary CIA counterintelligence officer Pete Bagley, Bagley's conclusion was that Oswald was a witting false defector. 2) Jane Roman, CIA officer on the staff of JJ Angleton, stated that in October 1963, the CIA had a keen operational interest in Oswald and that his file was under the tight control of the CIA Special Affairs Staff. This is fact: a routine cable from CIA Mexico City station asking for information on Oswald was followed by the number two man in CIA covert operations (Tom Karamessines) sending his own Mexico City station officers knowingly false information. So you can capitalize PREPOSTEROUS all you want. But the number one CIA counterintelligence officer of the Cold War believes that Oswald was a witting defector and a career officer working for JJ Angleton admits that the CIA had an operational interest in Oswald in October 1963. Also fact: in October 1963 Oswald was impersonated in MC speaking to the Soviets. You handwave this information away pretty quickly. I personally find it pretty remarkable. The fingering of Oswald: At every step of the way, law enforcement and executive response does not indicate a naive investigation. From the massive show of force at the Texas Theater for someone who didn't pay his ticket (already verbally accused of being the assassin by the DPD), to the White House situation room radioing AF1 that Oswald was the lone assassin before any investigation had even begun and no evidence against Oswald had been collected, to the Hoover's memo declaring Oswald guilty just 3 hours after the shooting again before there was any evidence against Oswald at all, none of these things could have happened if law enforcement were naive. The fix was in. The purposeful lack of proper protection: The Secret Service put a rookie in charge of the trip to Dallas, known as perhaps the most dangerous city in the US as the head of the White House detail (Behn) took his first vacation in many years (but I guess he didn't go too far since he turns up in the White House Situation Room later that afternoon). The Dallas Police Dept. planned for 8 motorcycles to surround the presidential limo. This was reduced to 4 and they were told to stay behind. The motorcade route should never have been allowed. There were no military personnel on tall buildings (like in Tampa earlier in the month and numerous other motorcades.) The HSCA described Kennedy's protection in Dallas as "possibly uniquely insecure." Secret Service agents were ordered to stay put as the first shot(s) rang out! Kennedy was maneuvered unprotected, into the firing line. And so on........there are so many more issues that scream conspiracy...
  9. This is unfortunately true. Preposterous? You may doubt it, but to call it preposterous is just not intellectually fair. There is plenty of evidence that Oswald was a false defector. I mean this marine private stumbles into the only place in the world (Helsinki) where he could get and entry into the USSR on the spot? He goes into the US Embassy and declares that he will commit treason by handing over military secrets and 30 months later he comes back to the US and is never even debriefed by anyone? Does that make any sense whatsoever? Jane Roman, retired CIA officer, admitted to Jefferson Morley and John Newman that in October 1963 information handling in the CIA on Oswald was "indicative of a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need to know basis.” And then this Oswald this supposedly broke low life is impersonated in Mexico City. This is just some weird random act? Preposterous? Wild speculation? Do we know the whole story? No we don't. But if you can't admit that there is plenty to ponder then you have no credibility with me. I would not doubt that there were multiple efforts of varying seriousness, or at least talk among different groups, about assassinating JFK. Trying to conflate everything into some "Grand Unified Theory" is probably a fool's errand. However, Oswald was clearly part of the plan that worked. I mean, seriously, do you honestly believe the Dallas police force was truly innocent and naive? The whole timeline and process of Oswald's capture just doesn't add up. And you've got the White House situation room declaring Oswald as the sole guilty party before any real investigation has even begun. Hoover declares Oswald guilty on the afternoon of 11/22 before there is any shred of evidence tying Oswald to any illegal activity and in the face of overwhelming eyewitness statement that would at least point honest investigators to look into multiple shooters. The fix was in. Thank you for being intellectually honest here about "skulduggery." And this is one of the difficulties in finding the truth, in my opinion: multiple motivations can explain the same actions: covering your a** or covering up your crime. You choose CYA. I don't think it is that simple. So it is "preposterous" that Oswald was connected to the CIA, but fully plausible that he was a Russian or Castro agent? Seems to me you can't have it both ways. Is it preposterous to think that Oswald's ties to the Soviets made him the perfect patsy? Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City. This is fact. Who was Oswald? He was a US Marine. So you buy that he was a real defector, yet the Soviets themselves did not. You buy that he was a Marxist, yet he associates in New Orleans with known hard core right wing paramilitary types. So you claim to know who Oswald was? Johnson knew that Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City when he made this statement to Warren, knew that he was lying to Warren! So the whole reason for the WC to lie (taking away the euphemism of "handle carefully") was itself based on a lie. Well, Mr. Payette, the problem is that all the evidence against Oswald is tainted. But what was in it for the Cubans or the Russians? Kennedy had already begun serious back-channel negotiations with Castro. Castro knew that with Kennedy's death, any chance of normal relations with the US were gone. Kennedy's death was bad for the Cubans. Likewise Khrushchev and Kennedy had reached an accommodation. They had just signed a nuclear test ban treaty. Kennedy was proposing joint lunar missions. (It is true that the hard-liners in both the US and the Soviet Union came out ahead as Khrushchev was out shortly after.) The problem with the Oswald alone or Russians were behind it scenario are myriad. Did Oswald or the Russians put a rookie in charge of Secret Service protection in Dallas? Did Oswald or the Russians order the motorcycle escort reduced from 18 to 4 (and then tell them to ride behind) creating conditions that were "uniquely insecure?" Did Oswald or the Russians tell the Dallas Police to show up with multiple squad cars and at least 15 officers to arrest someone for not paying for a movie ticket (while already claiming that he shot the president before they can even know his name or anything about him)? And so on and so on. So while looking for a simple solution is laudable, to do so here means you must ignore dozens of relevant facts. Some of the facts are subtle. Some, like there is no legitimate chain of evidence for anything to link Oswald with the whole mess, smack you in the face. My wife (who I don't care about) won't get back together with me, so I am going to shoot the president? So I'm going to become this "historical feature" by denying everything? Now that makes no sense.
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, Seriously, Mr. Trejo, I find many of the things that you write to be interesting. But you do have a tendency to ignore inconvenient facts and questions and resort to debating tricks rather than just being straightforward. Marina lied over and over; admit it. You can pick and choose whether lying to one group was ok and lying to another was not if you so desire. Clearly Marina was afraid. But Mr. Hargrove is correct: she lied and it is a crime to lie to the FBI. It is not perjury, but it is still a crime. Your arguments would be much stronger if you were more straightforward. Splitting the ridiculous hairs that you do doesn't strengthen your arguments. My $0.22
  11. Chuck, Your facts are not correct here. There was no autopsy done in Dallas. The body was spirited out of Parkland before Dallas County Medical Examiner Earl Rose could perform the legally mandated Dallas autopsy, apparently in a heated confrontation, by some accounts at gunpoint, at whose orders not exactly clear. The autopsy was of course performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital in the DC area by Humes, Boswell, and Finck, beginning officially at 8:00 PM eastern time, and was one of the most flawed and controversial in the history of forensic science; at best bungled, at worst sinisterly compromised. The first draft of the report, along with the notes, was indeed burned by Humes in his own fireplace.
  12. Mr. Tidd, For the sake of physics correctness: First of all, you are correct that Conservation of Energy is a deep and fundamental principle of physics. Correctly stated, the energy of an isolated system remains constant. (A closed system is defined as one in which matter cannot enter of leave; however energy can.) Contrary to your statement, energy is not a vector quantity. Energy, kinetic or otherwise, is a scalar quantity defined without direction. The problem with using Conservation of Energy to analyze collisions is that if there is any plastic deformation, fragmentation, etc. of the objects involved in the collision (i.e. anything that is not simple and complete bouncing), then mechanical energy will be transformed into thermal energy or sound energy that will radiate away and become very difficult to quantify. So a statement like, “We know from Conservation of Energy that the kinetic energy of the bullet that strikes JFK's head is conserved; none of this kinetic energy is "lost."” is potentially incorrect or at best a bit misleading. Energy will not be “lost” when the bullet strikes JFK, the total energy will stay the same (at least instantaneously); but the amount of kinetic energy will absolutely very quickly decrease as both bullet and body fragment and deform and the objects heat up. And then extremely quickly energy will radiate away (eventually into outer space) in the form of heat (since there is no way to thermally isolate the system of bullet/JFK/etc.). A further problem with using Conservation of Energy to analyze collisions is that energy is not directional. No conclusion about the direction of anything can be made based on energy arguments. Therefore, when analyzing collisions, it is typically another bedrock principle of physics, Conservation of Momentum, that is much more useful. Like energy, the momentum of an isolated system remains constant. Unlike kinetic energy, momentum will not transform into a different type that radiates away or becomes difficult to quantify. Unlike energy, momentum is a vector quantity, conserved in any given direction, and directional conclusions can be drawn. Now, the bigger point here is correct: the “jet effect” can in no way explain the backwards movement of JFK’s head. So while I could certainly imagine a situation where upon being shot, a vessel or object fractures in such a way that the shell of the object falls in the direction the shot came from, conservation of momentum dictates that in this case there must be a corresponding spray of material in the opposite direction, that is the direction the bullet is traveling; the net final momentum equals the original momentum of the bullet. So for JFK’s head to lurch backwards due to a shot from behind, there must be a very significant net spray of blood, skull, and brain tissue to the front. But as we all know, Jackie climbed onto the back of the limo to retrieve a piece of skull and from reliable eyewitness testimony, especially that of DPD motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis, the mass of spray went to the back. So by the law of conservation of momentum, skull thrown to back + spray to the back = shot from the front. This is elementary physics. Now that won’t prevent some from arguing otherwise. They’ll pretend that Hargis wasn’t hit by massive high-velocity spray and Jackie was trying to help Hill on board and neural-muscular reaction occurred to throw JFK back. But I know intellectual dishonestly when I see it, and the whole Alvarez/Jet Effect is just that.
  13. Thanks for demonstrating what I'm up against, Al. You took the statements of two seniors, who were trying to remember what they saw more than 30 years earlier, and used this to imply the autopsy photos and medical evidence are fake...and that the body really showed NO entrance wound by the EOP, just a large exit wound. (That is what you're doing, right?) Only this misrepresents what Sibert and O'Neill actually believed. Both men believed a bullet entered low on the back of the head and exploded out the top of the head. That is what they were told happened during the autopsy, and that is what they believed happened until their dying days. Their job was to observe the autopsy. And neither of them saw any body alteration, or recalled any discussion of shots from the front, etc. They were not conspiracy theorists. While the autopsy photos shown them decades after the shooting failed to correspond to their memories of Kennedy's wounds, their memories of Kennedy's wounds did not convince them the shot came from the front or any such thing. O'Neill, in fact, made numerous references to an entrance wound low on the back of the head, in the location described in the autopsy report. There are reasons I came to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit, and the way people twist the words of Sibert, O'Neill, Robinson, Boswell, Stringer, Ebersole, etc, is one of them. We have been through this before: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21535&page=3 so there is no need to repeat it here. The referenced thread includes drawings from ARRB testimony of numerous eye-witnesses and includes the contemporaneous observations of Parkland doctors. Yes, Pat, I believe the autopsy photos are fakes. So I believe that whether there was or was not an EOP entrance, or a shot from the front for that matter, cannot then be answered using the fake evidence. Interesting that you imply that I am twisting the words of Sibert and O'Neill by directly quoting them. Yes, they believe Oswald acted alone. Yes, they believe three shots from the back hit JFK -- not the WC 2 shots -- as declared by Humes (an evasive xxxx if there ever was one). Still, when confronted with the autopsy photos during their ARRB testimony, they were at a loss since the photos clearly didn't match what they saw. In my opinion, as loyal career FBI men, they just couldn't make the leap that the federal government was covering up the truth in the assassination of their president. You imply that somehow as "seniors" their memories were faulty. I believe that as true "Oswald-did-it-alone" believers, it gives their testimony weight since they had no agenda. For those new to the case, read the contemporaneous reports of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK. There was a large hole in the back of his head with cerebellar tissue dripping out. Again, for the life of me, I do not see how any other conclusion can be drawn. It is unfortunate that some of the Parkland doctors equivocated when faced with fraudulent autopsy results, Secret Service pressure, etc. But that is what happened. I will leave this thread now to those who want to pursue their studies of these photos. As I said Pat, I admire your tenacity and much of your research.
  14. While I admire Mr. Speer's research and tenacity, for the life of me I can't understand why he continues to put stock in the fake autopsy photographs and x-rays. From ARRB Testimony of FBI Agents O'Neill and Sibert, known up-close witnesses to the JFK autopsy: •MR. GUNN: Okay. Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as 'wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42. •BY MR. GUNN Q: I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy? •Francis O'Neill: This looks like it's been doctored in some way. •Q : But do you see anything that corresponds in Photograph No. 42 to what you observed during the night of the autopsy? •James Sibert: No. I don't recall anything like this at all during the autopsy. There was much -Well, . the wound was more pronounced. And it looks like it could have been reconstructed or something, as compared with what my recollection was... So while I am reasonably sure that I will not convince Mr. Speer (or Mr. Von Pein) that these photos lack veracity, those of you newer to the case should realize these photos are not true representations of the back of JFK's head.
  15. Mr. Hancock, somehow I missed this response. Thank you for your reply.
  • Create New...