Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

George Sawtelle

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About George Sawtelle

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Daniel Sheehan flow chart of the Kennedy assassination

    Cliff I think several CIA agents helped Dulles. I doubt Harriman had more influence with the CIA than did Dulles.
  2. Daniel Sheehan flow chart of the Kennedy assassination

    Cliff Sorry, no disrespect towards you, but I'll take Talbot's word over yours as to Dulles being the CEO of the Kennedy assassination.
  3. www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU3FcEdCl0w Forces, organizations, and men aligned against Kennedy in 1963. Covers almost all entities whose interests were in conflict with Kennedy's efforts for peace. Notice all the lines emanating from Allen Dulles. According to Sheehan Dulles was the man the elite selected to do difficult projects because he could get things done. IMO, the man who originated the plot to kill Kennedy can be narrowed down to Dulles. Sheehan provides a good explanation of the flowchart in the youtube video. For your information
  4. Help David Talbot's Stroke Recovery

    Good luck with your recovery. We need you so much David.
  5. Grassy Knoll shooter

    Tom I believe James Files. He made two statements to Joe West during his confession that frame his participation in the assassination. He told West the following 1. I will mark an "X" on the point where I was at in Dealey Plaza. That is not where I was but I will reveal my true position later, or words to that effect. 2. I won't give anybody up. Files was one of two shooters behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll however when he made his confession in 1993 the other shooter was still alive. He took the place of the other shooter in that he said he was the one who shot Kennedy in the head. He "eliminated" the other shooter by saying he was the only shooter behind the grassy knoll. This was his way of precluding all questions about another shooter behind the picket fence and thus not giving him up. I believe Files shot Kennedy in the throat from behind the picket fence (behind the pergola also) and that the other shooter shot Kennedy in the head. The other shooter died in 2007 but Files hasn't changed his story. ?????? Files wasn't part of the ambush until the day of the assassination. I think he was patsy #2. If patsy #1, Oswald, somehow escapes Dallas Files would have been arrested for the murder of Kennedy. The plotters had a back-up plan. Files had a track record of a disgruntled ex-soldier. Court martialed for killing an american soldier in Loas, he seemed to have enough baggage to place him in the radical category. David Phillips handled both Oswald and Files.
  6. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    All US government employes have a 201 file. The personnel office that hires you starts a 201 file on you that contains all your personal info, your medical plan selection, life insurance selected by you, references, police record, your awards, promotion citations, performance ratings etc, etc, etc. It's just a file that contains all the info on you during the time you work for the government agency. When you retire or leave the file is sent to St Louis where it is stored forever. If the CIA did not destroy it, Oswald's 201 file is probably stored in the St. Louis facility. So since Oswald had a CIA 201 file, it can only mean that he worked for the CIA. How many times do I have to inform you. A 201 file is not a spy file, it's a personnel file.
  7. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    There was no love lost between the CIA and FBI also. Hoover wouldn't support the CIA on Mexico City in the beginning but quickly fell into line when info surfaced that Oswald worked for the FBI.
  8. Oswald mock trial drop box of CLE course materials

    Jim You are correct. Weiss-Aschkenasy should have testified. They used simple graphical methods (no computer, no oscillascope, no complicated statistics and no one critical of their work that I know about). They did use statistics to determine and eliminate background noise but it was simple statistics. However they piggy backed off of BBN's work, using microphone 4 as the starting point of their work. BBN said mic 4 correlated to the grassy knoll shot and W-A was hired to check the location and accuracy of mic 4. So BBN had to be there also.
  9. Oswald mock trial drop box of CLE course materials

    Cliff I can't argue with you. You're right. Simplicity was the way to go. They felt the acoustics would help and once they made the decision to go with the acoustics they had to have someone there who could answer defense questions about cross talk, how the recorder functioned, the lag or delay time enherent in the recorder and rebut the critics. Don knows the ins and outs of this issue so he had to be there. In writing his book, "Hear No Evil", Don worked very closely with BBN and W-A.He undoubtedly learned quite a bit about the issue from the experts. You might say he went to school. That is why a scientist who is not a physics major knows so much about sound and it's properties.
  10. Oswald mock trial drop box of CLE course materials

    Got to give them credit for having Don Thomas as a presenter for the acoustics analysis. They had the right guy ... he is by far the premier advocate for the acoustics analysis. The opposition has no one who can match the knowledge that Thomas has on the subject. The science behind the analysis is not difficult to understand. The complicated part is the explanation that Thomas provides that rebuts his critics. Suffice to say he does rebut all criticism of the work of BBN and Weiss-Aschkenasy, the experts who did the acoustics analysis. BBN said there is a 50% chance that a second shooter fired a shot from the grassy knoll. Weiss-Aschkenasy said there was a 95% chance that a shot came from the grassy knoll. Weiss and Aschkenasy are the guys who write the computer programs for the sonar navigation system employed on Navy subs. These guys know their stuff. Weiss and Aschkenasy only verified the shot from the grassy knoll. BBN said there were 5 shots, eliminating the first shot, the misfire, since it did not meet it's criteria. Why Weiss and Aschkenasy did not verify all five shots, IDK. Possibly not enough funding ???????? Ninety five percent is darn near perfection. That kind of accuracy means there was definitely a shot from the grassy knoll. And that's probably why the acoustics analysis was included in the trial. But Thomas may have lost the jury in the fog of the explanation.
  11. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Brendan We all we know the CIA always has a back up plan in case the original plan goes south on them. They also have a cover-up plan that is to be implemented as soon as the dirty deed is complete (dirty deed = covert operation). So if the CIA alters documents sent to the US and the country which sends the documents to the US starts to squak about the CIA altering documents the CIA is ready to start their cover-up plan asap. 1. National newspapers like the Wash Post and the New York Times would order their reporters to write articles favoring the CIA position on the documents and criticizing the country which sent the documents as commies, fascist, violators of human rights or rogue. Dispicable and disparaging articles about the country. This is done to influence the american people and place the country in a negative light. 2. A full court press by the CIA would be placed on European governments, government officials, newspapers, and economic leaders friendly to the US. The newspapers would be encouraged to write articles favoring the US and the CIA and articles saying the accusing country supports terrorism. Newspapers reluctant to fall in line would be enticed with money. Enough money and they eventually fall in line. 3. Countries within our region would be encouraged to isolate the accusing country. Don't trade with the accusing country and have as little diplomatic activity with them as possible. Eventually economic sanctions would be placed on the accusing country if need be. The little accusing country could fight back but it would be no match for the CIA fueled by millions of US tax payer dollars and energized by overwhelming numbers against them. In the end it wouldn't do any good for a small country to fight back because they would waste what little resources they have on a losing battle.
  12. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Brendan What about the chutzpah to wipe out the president? If they had the chutzpah to blow a hole in Kennedy's head don't you think forging documents is nothing to the CIA? You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it. Thanks for the polite discussion.
  13. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Brendan I believe Mrs Baker is refering to approval by the Russian embassy for a visa to Russia. Technically that would allow an intransit visa to Cuba. To say that is ludicrous does not reflect on Mrs Baker but it does reflect on your prejudice toward Mrs Baker. All the facts surrounding this issue are unknown so how can we condemn Mrs Baker? One of the theories that make the rounds in the MSM every now and then is Castro killed Kennedy in revenge for Kennedy's attempts to kill Castro. Or Castro used Oswald to kill Kennedy because Kennedy was trying to kill him. Eventhough Castro would not want to see Kennedy removed from office I would think Castro would still distance himself from Oswald. Granting Oswald a visa to Cuba would not be a distancing measure. And because all the facts have not come to light, we cannot preclude the possibility of CIA alteration of Cuban documents. It was you who said we should not preclude the possibility of Oswald to MC, so therefore I ask the same consideration with regard to CIA alteration of Cuban documents.
  14. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Brendan The Cuban government never denied Oswald's visa. The decision to approve or disapprove Oswald's in transit visa to Cuba was in the hands of the Russian government. So Castro did not need to cover his tracks, they were covered by CE 2564. It's "no skin off Castro nose" if the US government decides to alter documents sent by the Cuban government to the US government on the Kennedy assassination. Why would it be important to the Cuban government whose photo is on Oswald's application? If push comes to shove Castro can always fall back on CE 2564. Therefore your question to David Jacobs re Why would the Cuban government accept CIA alteration of evidence from the Cuban government has been answered. In this case, it really doesn't matter.
  15. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Brendan Consider the following, pg 502 "Me and Lee" Judyth Vary Baker ... "It should be noted that Lee never mentioned going to Cuba again, despite his supposed obsession with the subject. His Cuban transit visa was actually approved less than a month later, which was almost record time, but he ignored it." She doesn't say how LHO found out about the approval. It's possible the Cuban consulate in MC mailed the approval to Oswald's address in NO and the NO post office forwarding his mail to Ruth Paine's house. ?????????? You indicate in a post on page 8 that his application was denied on 10/15 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was "denied" before the assassination which I think is important. So here we have one researcher (she still is a researcher aside from all the other stuff) presenting different information than presented by another researcher, you of course. Note that the time, less than a month, is about the same as the date of the denial of the visa, less than a month after his alleged visit to MC. Maybe there is some truth to her claim. Do we believe Judyth or the Cuban government? Just for argument's sake let's say we believe Judyth. Is it possible the Cuban government played ball with the CIA so that they get to change the approval to denial and the CIA gets to do whatever they want with Oswald's visa application? The denial of the visa appears to support the Cuban position on not working with Oswald to kill Kennedy. There may be some validity to my theory.