Jump to content
The Education Forum
Guest Tom Scully

Did the C.I.A. "Sheep Dip" and Orchestrate the Tale of the Patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Recommended Posts

Paul,

I suspect the reason this thread has been viewed so many times over the past year is simply due to it's interesting title. You know, "CIA," "Sheep Dip," "Patsy," "Lee Harvey Oswald?"...

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Tommy, I agree with you completely. The title is intriguing. That's why I thought my contribution was viable, i.e. that the the "CIA" was not the true "Sheep Dip" vehicle to make "Lee Harvey Oswald" into ther "Patsy" to kill JFK.

Instead, as I have repeatedly re-affirmed on this thread, it was (as Jack Ruby and Harry Dean have said all along) ex-General Edwin Walker, the John Birch Society and their many right-wing resources.

But that causes a major conflict with Tom, evidently, who has posted countless hyperlinks of 185,000 pages (by his count) of supporting evidence that the CIA did it. But his evidence is too loosey goosey.

For example, his sources sort of suggest that Priscilla Johnson McMillan was a CIA agent who met Lee Harvey Oswald in Moscow in 1959. So what? Are we to assume that the CIA plotted to kill JFK in 1959, even before JFK became President?

That is, 185,000 pages of hyperlinks can be used to show anything at all, or to give rise to thousands of more questions.

As I've already requested from Tom -- please post one single page of his own text to clearly state his objectives. Tom hasn't done that yet.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Mr. Trejo,

What's really interesting is that of the astronomical 186,225 "views" of this thread, only thirty-two (or is it thirty-one?) of the "replies" to it were posted by people other than Scully, and most of those were posted by you, Colby, and myself! LOL. I wonder why only 1.7% of the "views" have resulted in posts? Could it be that Mr. Scully's posts are just a tad too unwieldy and/or overwhelming to analytically (you know, "break down into smaller parts so you can take a look at them individually") quote and comment upon, or do most people just find them a bit too circumstantial, tedious, detailed, tangental, and obvious (yes, the rich and powerful people do like to associate with one another) to comment upon? I mean, there's got to be a reason for the low response rate.

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

I suspect the reason this thread has been viewed so many times over the past year is simply due to it's interesting title. You know, "CIA," "Sheep Dip," "Patsy," "Lee Harvey Oswald?"...

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Tommy, I agree with you completely. The title is intriguing. That's why I thought my contribution was viable, i.e. that the the "CIA" was not the true "Sheep Dip" vehicle to make "Lee Harvey Oswald" into ther "Patsy" to kill JFK.

Instead, as I have repeatedly re-affirmed on this thread, it was (as Jack Ruby and Harry Dean have said all along) ex-General Edwin Walker, the John Birch Society and their many right-wing resources.

But that causes a major conflict with Tom, evidently, who has posted countless hyperlinks of 185,000 pages (by his count) of supporting evidence that the CIA did it. But his evidence is too loosey goosey.

For example, his sources sort of suggest that Priscilla Johnson McMillan was a CIA agent who met Lee Harvey Oswald in Moscow in 1959. So what? Are we to assume that the CIA plotted to kill JFK in 1959, even before JFK became President?

That is, 185,000 pages of hyperlinks can be used to show anything at all, or to give rise to thousands of more questions.

As I've already requested from Tom -- please post one single page of his own text to clearly state his objectives. Tom hasn't done that yet.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Mr. Trejo,

What's really interesting is that of the astronomical 186,225 "views" of this thread, only thirty-two (or is it thirty-one?) of the "replies" to it were posted by people other than Scully, and most of those were posted by you, Colby, and myself!

I wonder why only .017 % of the "views" have resulted in posts? Could it be that Mr. Scully's posts are just a tad too unwieldy to analytically (i.e., "break down into smaller parts so you can take a look at them individually") quote and comment upon, or do most people just find them a bit too circumstantial and/or tedious and/or tangental and/or obvious (Yes, Virginia, the rich and powerful do like to associate with one another) to comment upon? I mean, there's got to be a reason for such a low response rate...

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

I'm evidently trying to improve Scully's ratio by double posting! LOL

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Trejo,

What's really interesting is that of the astronomical 186,225 "views" of this thread, only thirty-two (or is it thirty-one?) of the "replies" to it were posted by people other than Scully, and most of those were posted by you, Colby, and myself! LOL. I wonder why only 1.7% of the "views" have resulted in posts? Could it be that Mr. Scully's posts are just a tad too unwieldy and/or overwhelming to analytically (you know, "break down into smaller parts so you can take a look at them individually") quote and comment upon, or do most people just find them a bit too circumstantial, tedious, detailed, tangental, and obvious...

I mean, there's got to be a reason for the low response rate.

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Well, Tommy, I never looked at it that way before. With 185,000 views, why a comparatively miniscule number of reponses, when compared with other threads on this Forum?

From the IT viewpoint, it might suggest that the counter-app of this thread does not behave exactly the same as other counter-apps on other threads on this Forum. Could the number of hyperlinks in a thread increase the count?

Interesting.

Yet, please, let's not get side-tracked from the business at hand -- the theme of the thread. Are you yourself persuaded that the CIA set-up Oswald as a patsy for the JFK assassination?

If so, in what year do you believe this started? I think that's the truly critical question.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Trejo,

What's really interesting is that of the astronomical 186,225 "views" of this thread, only thirty-two (or is it thirty-one?) of the "replies" to it were posted by people other than Scully, and most of those were posted by you, Colby, and myself! LOL. I wonder why only .017% of the "views" have resulted in posts? Could it be that Mr. Scully's posts are just a tad too unwieldy and/or overwhelming to analytically (you know, "break down into smaller parts so you can take a look at them individually") quote and comment upon, or do most people just find them a bit too circumstantial, tedious, detailed, tangental, and obvious...

I mean, there's got to be a reason for the low response rate.

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Well, Tommy, I never looked at it that way before. With 185,000 views, why a comparatively miniscule number of reponses, when compared with other threads on this Forum?

From the IT viewpoint, it might suggest that the counter-app of this thread does not behave exactly the same as other counter-apps on other threads on this Forum. Could the number of hyperlinks in a thread increase the count? :rolleyes:

Interesting.

--Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr. Trejo,

What's really interesting is that of the astronomical 186,225 "views" of this thread, only thirty-two (or is it thirty-one?) of the "replies" to it were posted by people other than Scully, and most of those were posted by you, Colby, and myself! LOL. I wonder why only 1.7% of the "views" have resulted in posts? Could it be that Mr. Scully's posts are just a tad too unwieldy and/or overwhelming to analytically (you know, "break down into smaller parts so you can take a look at them individually") quote and comment upon, or do most people just find them a bit too circumstantial, tedious, detailed, tangental, and obvious...

I mean, there's got to be a reason for the low response rate.

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Well, Tommy, I never looked at it that way before. With 185,000 views, why a comparatively miniscule number of reponses, when compared with other threads on this Forum?

From the IT viewpoint, it might suggest that the counter-app of this thread does not behave exactly the same as other counter-apps on other threads on this Forum. Could the number of hyperlinks in a thread increase the count?

Interesting.

Yet, please, let's not get side-tracked from the business at hand -- the theme of the thread. Are you yourself persuaded that the CIA set-up Oswald as a patsy for the JFK assassination?

If so, in what year do you believe this started? I think that's the truly critical question.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dear Mr. Trejo,

Good question. I already know what your "take" on it is, but I'm still undecided. Hope that's okay. I wonder what Mr. Scully thinks... (not really)

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

The original research displayed is the description of the familial relationship of former CIA director Allen Dulles and his immediate family to members of the James Augustus Thomas family, and the fact that James Augustus Thomas, Jr. was the last person to see his friend, Stuart H. Johnson, Sr., the father of Priscilla Johnson, alive.

Dear Mr. Scully,

That's the way to do it. Summarize it for us (preferably at the beginning of the post ; I just now noticed this wonderful encapsulation). That way we don't have to spend "half our lives" reading all your hyperlinks and pay-per-view articles (unless we want to, of course) in order to find out, at least generally-speaking, what you're getting at.

Keep up the good work, and don't worry, your fans will still appreciate all the research you're doing. In fact in my case, I'll appreciate it more.

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, no hard evidence is presented to support the theory that the CIA -- that is, the official CIA -- sheep-dipped Lee Harvey Oswald.

However, SOMEBODY definitely framed Oswald. That is the core theory upon which the overwhelming majority of JFK researchers will agree.

The question is -- who? The answer must entail the nature of the sheep-dip.

Specifically, Lee Harvey Oswald, whose personal associates tended to be exclusively among the right-wingers in the South, was framed to appear to be a Communist.

While it is true that Lee Harvey Oswald sent many postal letters to Communist agencies and newspapers from 1962-1963, these are not personal relationships. Lee Harvey Oswald did not associate with Communists in his personal life. By actual film footage, we know that Lee Oswald associated with Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler -- two of the most rabid right-wingers in the USA at the time.

By a dozen eye-witness accounts in Clinton, Louisiana, we know that Lee Oswald associated with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie -- two more of the most rabid right-wingers in the USA at the time.

Therefore, whoever framed Lee Harvey Oswald convinced Oswald *personally* to behave like a Communist. We know for a fact that the FPCC chapter in New Orleans of which Lee Harvey Oswald was the chief officer, was actually a FAKE chapter. That chapter had only one member, Lee Oswald, and one fake member, Alek Hidell, the alias of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Why, why, why isn't this fact screamed in the re-telling? Oswald's FPCC chapter was FAKE. Therefore, Oswald's FPCC commitment was FAKE. That is the essence of the sheep-dip. The framing of Lee Harvey Oswald was all the work to make Oswald appear to be a Communist. But Oswald was no Communist.

Now, who did this? We know very well who did this. Clearly, the people who helped Lee Harvey Oswald pretend to be an FPCC officer were the framers. That includes Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler (by actual photographic evidence), so it also implicates their immediate contacts in New Orleans, namely, the DRE, INCA and their American coordinators, Guy Banister and David Ferrie.

The people who sheep-dipped Lee Harvey Oswald are known to us. There is no need to imagine or invent any fictional scenario to explain it. We have them. Now. What are we going to do about it?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

David Boylan shared the following document which I believe is a near-bombshell revelation. I think it radically alters the perception of LHO as being sheep dipped in NOLA to being that of a CIA asset assigned to infiltrate pro Castro groups. James McCord was running an operation to infiltrate the FPCC, and this document shows that McCord was working for David Atlee Phillips. It puts the Southland hotel meeting between Veciana, LHO and Phillips in context and perspective. While LHO was to become a latter-day Patsy, in the summer of 1963 he was working for the CIA.

 

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/NARA-Nov9-2017/104-10128-10300.pdf

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×