Jump to content
The Education Forum

A conspiracy theory even a Lone Nutter can love ...


Guest

Recommended Posts

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...

 

Edited by Al Fordiani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

38 minutes ago, Al Fordiani said:

The Dallas Police Dept. planned for 18 motorcycles to surround the presidential limo. 

You actually believe that the DPD was originally planning on having 18 motorcycles enveloping (or "surrounding") the President's limousine in Dallas?? Come now. There was no such plan. There were the lead cycles (forming the usual "wedge", which was way out in front of the lead cars), and the usual 4 cycles flanking JFK's car to the left and right----which is just exactly the number of cycles (4) that were used in most other pre-11/22 Kennedy motorcades, as can be seen in several photos on this webpage....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html

I have never seen any photos of any JFK parade that featured up to 18 motorcycles surrounding his car like a cocoon. That's ridiculous.

And take a look at the picture below of a pre-Nov. 22 parade, which features ZERO motorcycles flanking Kennedy's car. Not a moving cycle in sight. Lots of policemen facing the crowds, but no motorcycles flanking the limo. Do you suppose there was a massive "standdown" of security for this JFK motorcade too?....

JFK-Motorcade.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen any Kennedy motorcade which featured up to 8 cycles surrounding the limousine either. It was almost always exactly 4 --- two on the right side of the car and two on the left. Four seemed to be the usual number anyway. And that's precisely the number we find in Dallas.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Al Fordiani said:

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.

No, I don't just "brush it away."

Humor me here:  Oswald was a troubled youth from a troubled childhood whose Marxist "working man" fantasies began at the age of 15; who followed his two brothers into the military because there were no other options to escape the mother from hell; who as a Marine had engaged in some unusual activities (the high-dollar Japanese hostess, the plane photos in the duffle bag, the in-your-face interest in the USSR, the conversations with a fellow Marine about joining the revolution in Cuba); who said that he had begun formulating his defection plan more than a year before he carried it out; who got himself sent home early for an entirely bogus reason (Mom's health); who almost immediately left Mom and entered the USSR via the very route that would ensure the least delay or chance for snafus (Helsinki); who put on a comical show at the American Embassy; who made a half-hearted suicide attempt when it appeared he would have to go home; who wrote comical I'm-a-Russian-now letters back to Mom and Robert; who quickly became disaffected with the Marxist utopia and began ridiculing the very things the Soviets held dearest; who engaged in sit-down strikes and stole military-sensitive parts to try to make "grenades" in his apartment (and asked his best friend's advice about the chemicals to use), conduct that would've caused the typical radio factory worker to be shot or sent to Siberia; who showed utterly no interest in any of the sensitive things the KGB dangled in front of him to test whether he might be a U.S. operative; who had decided to return to the U.S. and wrote the U.S. Embassy barely a year and a half after his arrival; who married Marina six weeks after meeting her and assuring her and her MVD uncle that he was fully committed to staying in the USSR; who greatly complicated his request to return the U.S. by marrying Marina; who, in the KGB's extensive monitoring of his apartment, never showed himself to be anything other than a harmless, troubled young man; who returned to the U.S. a completely different and more angry man (according to Marina); who saw his marriage collapse, who lived in nothing but abject poverty, and who could never rise above a minimum-wage job despite his delusions of grandeur; who shifted his dreams to Cuba and engaged in a series of activities to make those dreams come true, including a nothing-short-of-bizarre visit to Mexico City.

THAT Oswald - THAT is your portrait of a CIA false defector/operative???  Hey, I don't doubt that the CIA and KGB had a "keen operational interest" in Oswald, as in:  "WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS GUY UP TO, because we've never seen anything like it?"  (The KGB said as much:  Oswald's behavior was so completely at odds with a false defector that they thought he might be part of some weird new program.)  What I think he was up to was "being Oswald."

Sure, if you are willing to ignore much of the above you can fit a cardboard cut-out of Oswald into all sorts of sinister CIA-orchestrated scenarios via fourth-hand hearsay and speculation.  The problem for me is that the cardboard cut-out is never "being Oswald."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Kennedy Houston.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice job Al.

The comments by Bagley are really something. He said that shortly before he died.

 Makes you wonder.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Al Fordiani said:

but see John Newman, former assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, and his book Countdown to Darkness. 

My wife commandeered the computer for family reasons before I could finish my above post.  I do believe it is at least relevant that Newman also believes that Jesus - yeah, THAT Jesus - was a veritable yogic master steeped in Eastern teachings and practices and that this was the thrust of his "real" message..  You can read all about it here:  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0055UA0TQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

The book is Quest For The Kingdom: The Secret Teachings of Jesus in the Light of Yogic Mysticism.  I happen to be up to my eyeballs in truly heavy-duty Christian theology and apologetics, and have been for many years, and I can tell you that this book has caused nary a ripple in the scholarly or even unscholarly community.  I have been unable to find even one review.  It is at the far edge of the "Christian" (if we can even call it that) fringe.

I am not so unfair as to suggest that this should call into question the quality of Newman's other work.  But neither do I think it is completely irrelevant, as indicative perhaps of a proclivity to "see things others do not see."  If Posner had written a book called Jesus Came On a Flying Saucer, I suspect we'd be hearing about it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KG:  But this could be an unspoken conspiracy between the two to promote Jim Di's books and traffic to DVP's website which certainly fits in with Jim Di's  grand conspiracy theories where he certainly has never met a conspiracy he didn't like. 

One of the really fruity comments ever made here, but kind of par for the course with KG, who has yet to make an enlightening comment on the case. Which may show why he talks to Payette.

I had been off of this forum for awhile until 3-4 years ago. I looked in and saw how DVP was essentially running roughshod over everyone with his SBT disease and  the discredited  "Its Oswald's rifle" baloney.  I left a message at DPF to this effect.  And began posting here in order to dispel the idea that anyone should take Von Pein's posting seriously, and I proved why.  I was cheered on by most of the posters at that time as performing a quite helpful act by revealing that DVP was in no position to tell anyone what the facts of the case were.  Since he was so biased that you could not trust anything he said.

I stand by that statement today.

And I would place Lance Payette is that category also. Except  he is of the particular stripe who has the come on of "oh, i have seen the same thing with fake moon landings, and alien abductions.  Plus I have read a lot of this stuff and somehow it really does not make all that much sense etc."

The twofold giveaway with Payette is :

1.) What responsible lawyer could possibly compare moon landings and alien abductions with a homicide case?  That is just so nutty that it should fall back on the guy who said it. 

2.) To  maintain that silly standard for the critical community, and yet to excuse every bit of chicanery, each bit of deception, every instance of unfairness, and all the incompleteness that made up the WC should tell anyone with any sense that Payette has an agenda only slightly smaller than the Grand Canyon.  (Heck he's from Arizona isn't he?)

And he then questions the decline in dialogue here.  This is after he said he was leaving. Why should he leave when he has people like Kirk to play pattycake with.  

 

PS The post above is more proof of why Payette is as trustworthy as Von Pein.

The man who said that the routing pattern demonstrated that the Oswald trip to Russia was a planned defection was not John, but Tennant Bagley.  Bagley was a long time CIA officer who specialized in these matters. The fact that LP avoided the information and escaped into a cheap character smear  tells you who this guy is. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I avoid any thread the Arizona lawyer starts because, as I explained above, I understand his game.

But I went back and read some of the early stuff on this thread and his quotes filtered through.

This guy never tires of recycling discredited MSM baloney.  This idea of a "benign" cover up is about 25 years old, at least.  And the Arizona lawyer trots it out as if its new.  And he then says, well see, you people would rather believe in some kind of a plot since its more fun!

I answered this question at the 30th anniversary on a nationwide radio show!  Yes, back in 1993!

My reply was this:

1.) No its not fun doing what I do.  Its hard work and a lot of it is tedious.  I live in LA, so while people are going to Malibu and Manhattan Beach, I am at the Corner Bakery with three books on the table drinking iced tea and eating a tuna sandwich, taking notes. Lots of fun eh?

2.) The reason I, and many others do it, is simple: the core evidence in this case simply does not support the official story.  You can spin it anyway you wish to.  You can cover it up, you can disguise it, you can ignore it, you can say, as VB did, "Well that is OK since we know Oswald did it", you can say, as Payette does, "Well its same as alien abductions".  :stupid

None of that will change the spurious state of the core evidence.  And as time goes on the state of that evidence has gotten worse. If a prosecutor as skilled and as storied as Bugliosi had to cover up the failings in the record by burying it in a 2,646 page cinder block, and using a record of invective and insult along the way to somehow conceal that failure, then you  know how bad things are with that record.  When your chief piece of evidence is CE 139, and you cannot tell the reader the simple fact that this rifle is not the rifle the Commission says Oswald ordered, then somehow you have lost your way as a representative of the people in court.

And that encapsulates what has happened in the JFK case. Notable people who are storied in other respects somehow shrink in stature when they cannot deal with the phoniness of the evidence in the JFK case.  Its been labeled off limits, outside of Hallin's inner spheres. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin's_spheres)  Much easier to swim with the MSM current than to defy it.

Just ask people who have tried to defy that current, e.g. Judge Joe Brown, Richard Sprague, Bob Parry, and Gary Webb.  

Unfortunately, in the last 2 cases, they cannot reply.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Al probably does not know about the travail of Betsy Wolf.  Because those files were not released until last year.

Very few people know about her because she has not been at all outspoken about what happened while she was on the HSCA.  As opposed to say Ed Lopez or Dan Hardaway or the late Gaeton Fonzi.

Betsy Wolf quite literally spent months, extending over a year, trying to figure out the mystery that Al is talking about here.  Why did the CIA place so many unusual restrictions on the Oswald file?  She  literally took scores of pages of notes on the file.  She interviewed several people who had experience with handling CIA files on personnel.  She studied the history of the Oswald file and tried to actually build a model on how it was structured through time. These were the questions she faced:

1.) Why was there no 201 file opened on Oswald until 13 months after his defection?

2.) Why were so many restrictions placed on that file once it was opened?

3.) Would the file have been opened if Otto Otepka had not written his letter to the CIA about the false defector program?

 

Its really too bad that she did not talk to Bagley.  He could have given her some really interesting information.

The excellent archive researcher Malcolm Blunt has given me much of Wolf's work.  I have only reviewed the file once and its so dense and complex I will have to read it again.  (Sounds like fun, huh Lance?)

But I can say this in a tentative way before I do the second pass.  Wolf concluded that the CIA would not have opened the Oswald 201 file if Otepka had not written his letter.  Combine what with what Bagley said and, sorry, its not alien abductions.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I had been off of this forum for awhile until 3-4 years ago. I looked in and saw how DVP was essentially running roughshod over everyone with his SBT disease and  the discredited  "Its Oswald's rifle" baloney.  I left a message at DPF to this effect.  And began posting here in order to dispel the idea that anyone should take Von Pein's posting seriously, and I proved why.  I was cheered on by most of the posters at that time as performing a quite helpful act by revealing that DVP was in no position to tell anyone what the facts of the case were.  Since he was so biased that you could not trust anything he said.

James, in my humble opinion you deserve a lot of credit for being here to counter the seemingly constant stream of disinformation coming from the loyal opposition. I don't know how you find the patience, but it is appreciated. You have an enviable grasp of the facts of this case.

I apologize for engaging the person who started this thread when I should have known better. I'll try not to make that mistake again in the future. After thinking about it carefully these past few days, I've come to the conclusion it appears there's only so much that can be accomplished by debating the same points again and again with people who have no inclination to consider anything but a lone assassin. That is their right to hold that belief and I respect that right. I've just come to think that little of anything productive can come from repeatedly going in circles. If someone has gotten this far in life learning about the details of the JFK assassination and truly finds nothing at all suspicious about it, I doubt that can ever be changed.

I believe in strong advocates for all sides. I still support the most rigorous examination of the evidence and the most vigorous debate possible among those who passionately represent their side of the issue. I hope this examination and debate will continue. I also understand the visceral appeal and the value of the intellectual exercise that comes with arguing about any controversial and complex case. But, if there are people who are arguing almost entirely just for the sake of argument and treating debate like a game, in my opinion that's barely better than trolling. Unfortunately, I believe many of the regular members on this forum are vulnerable to that sort of trolling behavior precisely because they take this case seriously.

If we lose thoughtful and knowledgeable forum members like Joe Bauer, the quality of the forum will decline. I know that I have not posted much, but I've been lurking and reading for years. In my opinion, the quality of the forum declines when certain members use the forum for personal amusement and intellectual sport instead of the valuable resource it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And I would place Lance Payette is that category also. Except  he is of the particular stripe who has the come on of "oh, i have seen the same thing with fake moon landings, and alien abductions.  Plus I have read a lot of this stuff and somehow it really does not make all that much sense etc."

Golly, Jim's "wrong browser" seems to be positively diabolical.  Get that thing fixed, big guy.  You're starting to give the impression that little old me is getting under your skin in a major way.  You are familiar with the expression "Methinks thou doth protest too much," are you not?  You have read "The Emperor's New Clothes," right?  That's my role here:  "Does anyone else see that these self-promoting big guns of the assassination have left their flies open?"

For the record - is there a record? - the alien abduction phenomenon is and was a genuine phenomenon that occupied minds of the caliber of the late John Mack of Harvard University and many others of equal caliber.  The fact that tens of thousands of people around the world, from African tribesmen to high-level government officials, have reported essentially the same thing, and have repeatedly tested as psychologically healthy and in touch with reality, means that we are dealing with a genuine phenomenon that demands an explanation.  It does not mean that we are dealing with alien abductions, but it does mean we are dealing with a phenomenon that causes tens of thousands of believe to believe this.

There is no real consensus today as to what this phenomenon is, except that it is almost surely not flesh and blood aliens in nuts and bolts craft abducting flesh and blood humans in the context of earthly physical reality.  This is what it was assumed to be for many years, but the UFO research community - which is far more sophisticated, self-critical and less dogmatic than its JFK counterpart - now recognizes that this paradigm simply doesn't work and that the early efforts were plagued by truly bad research techniques and hidden agendas (e.g., premier researcher Budd Hopkin's use of leading questions on hypnotized subjects).

Strangely, or perhaps not, Lance's arc with alien abductions parallels his arc with the JFK assassination:  30 years ago, I was lapping it all up.  THIS STUFF IS REAL!!!  But because I am intelligent and analytical, I had my enlightenment even before the UFO community as a whole did so.  THERE IS NO WAY THAT ALIEN ABDUCTIONS EXPLAIN THIS PHENOMENON.  Now, I am honest enough to admit that I have nothing more than sketchy educated guesses as to what the phenomenon might be.

One point being, the JFK conspiracy community should not be insulted if I compare the dynamics here to the alien abduction community.  If anything, the opposite is true - it's the abduction research community that ought to be insulted.

The other point being this:  Despite all that I have said, even today the alien abduction community is plagued with highly educated professionals who promote insane positions and have cult-like followings.  History professor emeritus David Jacobs of Temple University will believe to his dying day that there is a massive alien hybridization program for the purpose of taking over the earth and that WE OUGHT TO BE JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED!!!  He sells lots of books, and his sizable cult hangs on his every word.

I don't believe I have ever mentioned the "fake moon landing" community.  They are, of course, loons.  There is no "mainstream" fake moon landing community and "lunatic fringe" fake moon landing community.  They are all the functional equivalent of people who think Jackie shot JFK.  But even here, consider Richard Hoagland (a good friend of mine knows him well).  Hoagland, http://www.enterprisemission.com/, is a "recipient of the Angstrom Medal, former science advisor to CBS News and Walter Cronkite."  Yet he sees huge crystalline structures sticking miles out from the surface of the moon that no one but his devoted followers can see.  Consider Linda Moulton Howe (I met her in 1989!).  She was an Emmy-winning journalist but is now so far into the ozone that she'd believe you if you told her there was an alien in your toilet bowl.  Yet she too has a massive following.

I do believe, and it is scientifically documented, that there are people who are prone to see conspiracies where most people do not.  That's all.  They are not all delusional, and all the conspiracies they see are not bogus.  However, it is within this segment of the population that delusional "conspiracy loons" are found and laughable conspiracies are believed.  And those "conspiracy loons" and laughable conspiracies often have at the forefront people with seemingly impeccable academic and professional credentials who are, alas, insane in this little corner of their lives.

My point, to those who have ears to hear, is simply:  As you view the JFK conspiracy landscape, you would do well to keep this stuff in mind.  Perhaps Armstrong or Newman has cracked the case.  Perhaps they are the JFK versions of David Jacobs, Richard Hoagland and Linda Moulton Howe.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

I apologize for engaging the person who started this thread when I should have known better. I'll try not to make that mistake again in the future.

Come on, Denny boy, man up.  You've been made to look like a dummy on a couple of substantive issues in recent days and now you're going to take your ball and go home.  There was no "disinformation," fella  - you were simply uninformed.

Debate is a "game," in case you didn't know it.  I've spent 35 years doing it as a lawyer, and I didn't whine "Well I'm never going to handle another case against him" when I got my butt kicked by someone who had the better facts and arguments..

You're not really complaining because I am "trolling" or "spreading disinformation," and you know it.  You are complaining because (1) I'm damn good at this debate stuff and have well-honed analytical and research skills that most people don't; (2) when I have dealt in nitty-gritty substantive issues, as I have increasingly done, I have consistently poked holes in conspiracy gospel; and (3) I deal heavily in epistemological issues that most people have never considered before and that are anathema to conspiracy zealots.

There's an old saying in the law:  "When the facts are against you, argue the law.  When the law is against you, argue the facts.  When they are both against you, pound the table and shout."  The conspiracy version would be:  "Say your opponent is just a trolling Lone Nutter who is unworthy of further debate."

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...