Jump to content
The Education Forum

Al Fordiani

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Al Fordiani

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

6,700 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 Oswa
  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,
  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
  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 Osw
  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,"
  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
  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, admit
  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, fictit
  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 com
  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 t
  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
  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 i
  15. Mr. Hancock, somehow I missed this response. Thank you for your reply.
×
×
  • Create New...