Jump to content
The Education Forum

Al Fordiani

Members
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

7,659 profile views

Al Fordiani's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (2/14)

  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

  1. Just watch the whole speech, all 27 minutes. What a giant. Will we ever hear such noble and uplifting words from governmental leaders again? Makes me cry….. They gunned him down and look what we’ve devolved into: Twitter and Biden and Trump and war everywhere, all the time. The magnitude of what JFK was trying to do…. And he just might have been able to pull it off. His intellect and vision and charisma and common sense at maybe the right time. But he trusted the Secret Service….. In great likelihood, IMO, JFK saved the world from nuclear war. We are all lucky he was in the driver’s seat at the time when the MIC still hadn’t figured out it had to transition away from the nuke Laos and Cuba, first strike doctrine of LeMay and the WWII generals. it would be great if we could upgrade the level of discourse on this forum.
  2. Where would we be today without the enormous contributions of David Lifton?! I know that some on this forum had a personal issues with him -- he could certainly be blunt and dismissive -- but who can argue that he was a giant in the field of JFKA? His uncovering of the autopsy hank-panky is in some ways the foundation of our understanding. He will be greatly missed by me. RIP, DSL.
  3. To call Jefferson Morley a "fraud" is so beyond ridiculous. Keep your head firmly in the sand! Have you read "What Jane Roman Said."? https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_1.htm Jane Roman: “To me its indicative of a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need to know basis.” “I would think that there was definitely some operational reason to withhold it [the information at headquarters on Oswald], if it was not sheer administrative error, when you see all the people who signed off on it.” Here is a high-ranking career CIA officer admitting that the Special Affairs Staff at CIA had all information on Oswald under tight control "need to know" because of a "keen interest" with an "operational reason" in Oct 1963. What about that is difficult to understand? What light might be shed on the operation by releasing the Joannides file is debatable. That the CIA was watching or involving Oswald in an operation is not. Morley digs up first hand sources and you call him a fraud.....Look in the mirror and stop dismissing unpleasant facts.
  4. I appreciate the efforts here to keep researchers honest. There has been PLENTY of BS from people who believe or push anything conspiracy oriented, no matter how flimsy, on the public. So bring on the defense of the WC and LN position and question every conspiracy idea. But be honest and objective. Critically look at everyone’s statements. Look what LeMay’s does in his oral history: when asked directly about where he was when Kennedy was assassinated at first he tries to imply that he was in Washington because his post was chief of staff the Air Force. Then when pressed just a little he says he was “off someplace….” I’m sorry, but LeMay’s responses to a simple direct question, one that he UNDOUBTEDLY knows the specific and direct answer to, are vague and evasive. What need would General LeMay have to be evasive about that? An HONEST person would have just given a DIRECT ANSWER. LeMay had something to hide…..wonder what that would be…..
  5. Jim, Go for it. I was starting to feel that I was just going to start repeating myself. I agree with your last statement that the Armstrong presentation contains a lot of insights beyond questions about multiple Oswalds. If you have a few more things to discuss, I’m game.
  6. My last post on this thread. And again, sticking to Westbrook and the capture of Oswald and not getting into the bigger picture Harvey and Lee stuff. I do not see what you mean by "Rube Goldberg-esque." I see the scenario put forth by Armstrong to be simple and direct. Going into the assassination, the plotters have an issue they must solve: getting Oswald into custody; or better yet getting Oswald killed before taken into custody. Because the issue is that there is no reason to chase or arrest Oswald right in the aftermath of the assassination. There just isn't any true immediate evidence. By the time that any of the evidence -- the MC rifle, the bullets, even dubious eye-witness reports -- point the finger at Oswald, he potentially could be long gone. So the plotters need a pretext, a reason to go after Oswald with full force while the evidence against him for JFK is developed. Better yet, they need a way to eliminate him before he is captured, then have the evidence against him developed while he is already dead. So a simple plan is developed by the plotters to be managed by Westbrook: Oswald under orders is to get on a particular bus. Tippit under orders is to drive to a particular spot for a meet. Westbrook and Croy will intercept Oswald on the bus and accompany him to the meet with Tippit. Professional killers at the meet take out both Oswald and Tippit; the scene is staged to look like Oswald and Tippit killed each other (or Oswald was killed fleeing by someone else); Westbrook manages the crime scene and plants the key Hidell evidence linking Oswald to the MC rifle. Dead Oswald is taken into custody (the morgue) as the killer of Tippit. Evidence then develops linking dead Oswald to the assassination. Simple and clean. (I'm assuming that there was probably a good reason for the plotters to kill Tippit; maybe even just as a loose end that could conveniently be tied up.....) But Oswald foiled that exact scheme by getting off the bus quickly and dodging Westbrook (and Croy). So Westbrook tried to intercept Oswald at his rooming house, but then had to go to a backup plan of capture in the Texas Theater (a meet Oswald obviously still trusted). There was still needed the pretext to take Oswald into custody, so the Tippit murder must still happen; but Oswald cannot be killed alongside Tippit, and gets captured alive instead. In the end this is good news for us because it caused the plotters to tip their hand to history more than they wanted to -- like exposure of the second wallet and Westbrook....and all of Oswald's public statements....all the way to the Ruby shooting of Oswald (which seems was abetted by the same Croy.) My conjecture is that if Oswald was killed as planned, the whole unfolding of (planted) evidence against Oswald as the assassin would have happened a little more slowly and organically, so as not to be so obvious that the fix was in. As it played out, the police were already calling Oswald the presidential assassin at the Texas Theater, there is no way they could innocently know that. Bottom line on the title referenced presentation: Based on Armstrong's analysis of Westbrook's testimony, I believe Westbrook was a fore-knowledge conspirator.
  7. Dude, did you read the whole post? Seriously. Tippit and Oswald would then both be murdered at that location. If you can’t read the whole post, then it’s a waste of time.
  8. Yes, very separate orders. Tippit was being set up to be killed. Westbrook was in charge of managing that murder scene and planting the incriminating evidence against Oswald. So I think nearly all of us could agree that there is no way that the conspirators would have had as original plan A to have Oswald taken alive and then killed in the jail 2 days later. Obviously, there has been much discussion and speculation about it. Armstong’s scenario here ties a lot of things together very neatly. It certainly passes the test of Occam's razor, which is hard to do. Armstrong’s findings suggest conspirators Plan A was have Oswald board a bus. Westbrook and Croy intercept Oswald on the bus and shepherd him to a location. Tippit is ordered to same location. Oswald and Tippet would then both be murdered and the scene staged to look like they killed each other. This is all supervised by Westbrook. End result: Tippit is a hero. The dead Oswald is obviously guilty in the Tippit shooting with the gun planted in his hand. The important ID cards linking Oswald to Hidell (and so to the gun and JFK) are planted by Westbrook and found on Oswald at the Tippit scene. Dallas end clean. Investigation proceeds nice and easy from there. No Texas Theater. No arrest. No press. No “just a patsy.” No Ruby. No hard questions to answer. But Oswald got off the bus and messed up the plan. So there had to be some improvising. Westbrook and Croy using DPD car 207 beep at Oswald’s trying to get back on plan, but he doesn’t come out. Tippit still has to be murdered or there’s no reason to arrest Oswald, so it happens, but now everything gets messy. The wallet plant can’t happen. Oswald is in public and can’t be killed. The rest is history and the mess helps us figure out what really happened. It shows how much the DPD was willing to go along that Westbrook was able to massage everything internally right down to Croy making way for Ruby. In all the assassination research it is hard to name names. I now believe we can name Westbrook as a conspirator before the fact.
  9. There are some speculative bits. Armstrong admits when he does. But I’m surprised that you say that it is “impossible” to take this article seriously. Armstrong’s concern in this talk are the actions and testimonies of DPD officers Westbrook and Croy. His basic thesis is that Westbrook was a witting pre-assassination conspirator whose job on November 22 was to manage: the planned murder of Tippit, the planting of evidence incriminating Oswald at the Tippit murder scene; importantly, planting the ID cards linking Oswald to the name Hidell; the leading of police to the Texas Theater. I think he puts forth a very compelling case. Westbrook testimony is farcical. Mr. Armstrong presents a meticulous body of facts and knows the ground. What is also important is that Armstrong follows the trail of investigation afterwards. He shows how every important question that could have unraveled Westbrook’s story — like any questions to the original driver of DPP car 207 — are never asked by anybody; or, even better, get to be answered by Westbrook himself. Everywhere in his and Croy’s story are “unknown officers.” Westbrook was everywhere on Nov. 22 and his story is a lie. I think Armstrong makes a compelling case that the 2 photo IDs linking Oswald to Hidell were placed into evidence at a different time than the 14 pieces of evidence from the Texas Theater wallet, and that they were in the 10th and Paxton wallet (that we wouldn’t even know about except for Hosty’s book years after the fact.) That 10th and Paxton wallet was a Westbrook plant. Westbrook of the personnel department ends up handling all the crucial Oswald evidence, is first on the scene at the Texas theater, but can never remember anyone in DPD’s name? I am going to stay out of the more general “Harvey and Lee” debate. Irrelevant to Westbrook. I will agree that Oswald arrested in Texas Theater did not shoot Tippit. “Why would Tippit follow the bus?” That was his job. He was following orders. In all likelihood he was being led to where he and Oswald would “kill each other” in a double murder, but the original plan got derailed a bit when Oswald got off the bus and went home first. Debate the points. But not take seriously?
  10. I just want to say: this is absolutely MUST listen! Set aside any “Harvey and Lee” feelings or bias. Substitute “man who shot Tippet” for LEE Harvey Oswald. Focus on Westbrook’s and Croy’s statements versus reality. Whether or not every little detail is correct, I find the overall narrative very compelling. Westbrook was the man in the DPD. A true conspirator. That I believe. Thank you John Armstrong for a great presentation.
  11. 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....
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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....
×
×
  • Create New...