David Josephs

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter Greg... There were a number of people who were the "spitting image of Oswald" ... not sure if you are aware of the Vaganov situation... but fits nicely with some of the other evidence offered that day in Nov. Masen photo below that... You obviously have given this plenty of thought and have done research and planning for an article... I would love to see it with the supporting documentation and your cross referencing of evidence to show that Odio was wrong about the 26th/27th, that the Tourist visa made out to LEE, Harvey Oswald but signed Lee H Oswald matches the Lee, Harvey Oswald written on the Hotel Registry for day 1, and notice how the rest of the "LEE HARVEY" notations look nothing like the writing of the manager who claims he writes in the names of guests day-to-day after they sign in for the first time... (CE2123) Any ideas why our Oswald would sign his name in a manner NEVER seen before when the document is signed with a more correct signature, or why his name appears different than all the other names on the list, every day? Could it have been MASEN? Possibly Greg, but that's not what the witnesses say, and as you say Ellworth was keeping pretty close tabs on the man... no mention in his reports about his going to Mexico or those shooting ranges... there is in fact quite a lot on Masen on this Forum... just search.. And these responses is what I mean by pushback... I can create 100's of "possible" scenarios that can be tweaked to fit a certain portion of the evidence... The title for my work has always been: "The Evidence IS the Conspiracy" and I approached this research with the desire to use the evidence provided to determine whether the FBI lied about the journey to and from Mexico... I find that they did. That buried in thousands of documents is the evidence he did not go or come as they told us. Could David Ferrie have flown him from somewhere to Mexico City under cover of night and then the rest of the stuff happened? Doesn't explain DURAN claiming this person was only there on Friday morning thru about 1pm... She denies the after 4pm calls which makes sense since the office was closed by then. Please tell me how you found out the trip to AUSTIN was earlier when everyone involved discussed the 25th and 26th of Sept. I wrote: There is nothing offered to deny the possibility of Oswald staying in Austin until the following day, when on the morning of Thursday the 26th Mrs. Norman could be serving Oswald coffee, alone. Given Harvey's cheap ways, milking a $.10 cup-a-joe while waiting for his comrades to get ready to leave for Dallas can explain the sighting and trip to Austin just as easily as the FBI dismissing it on such weak grounds. And even if we move the dates back to Sept 25 for his visit to Odio... there is another mountain of evidence in Houston, Laredo, Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey and Mexico City that our man Oswald was not on any of the buses the FBI puts him on... In fact, all thru March April and May 1964 they hash and rehash the details correcting themselves along the way. I have added quite a bit to those articles right here on the forum in a variety of thread, easy to find, where I've tried to update my presentation of info based on the newer releases and the continued finding of info thru the general course of research. Oswald did not order the Rifle, Oswald did not shoot JFK, and Oswald did not kill Tippit... Oswald was a patsy... a person upon whom the blame for something falls; scapegoat; fall guy. and this blame was backed by the full weigh of the US intelligence services, the US Military and closely related Depts/agencies like State and I&NS. If you see it differently - as you continue to try and offer - so be it... Not a single document in the thousands I have seen specifically suggest Oswald was there without reference to the CIA's sources... the FBI looked all month and did not find hide nor hair of the man having been in Mexico City... You think the FBI would want to add proof that he was there to the CIA's, no? Well as I posted, he tried and failed miserably... if he wasn't in Mexico, and was at some point at Odio then Dallas... what's the problem?

Please note Oswald’s letter of November 9, the text of which was transmitted to Moscow, over the line [?] of nearby neighbors. This letter was clearly a provocation: it gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own. It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald. Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself. The suspicion that the letter is a forgery is heightened by the fact that it was typed, whereas the Having re-read this and looked again at the Nov letter... the embassy referred to here is the Russian Embassy in Washington DC, not the Mexican Russian Embassy... so I'd have to conclude this is not evidence from the Russians denying his contacting the embassy in Mexico... Just like the other letter is simply addressing what the press is saying and not what actually happened. If Oswald had been there in Sept, and DAP was already there when the Sept Summary reports are written, how do we explain the phone calls not being mentioned at all? Worse yet, the Mystery Man photo is from Oct 2nd, not the 1st... FBI has him leaving the morning of the 2nd while the CIA has a transcript of the man on Oct 3rd... Red Herring for breakfast?

Thanks Ben, very kind of you to say.... I'd like those reading it to remember it was based on the information at the time and my thoughts at the time... While it starts out accepting much of the Armstrong theory of Lee going to Mexico while Harvey was at Odio & Dallas, I found thru the evidence that it being a real person was not a lock and I was fairly sure it was not Lee at all (search for Alice Texas in this forum for more on that). I assume you are talking about the russian memos translated? This collection is a set of KGB documents given to President Bill Clinton in 1999 by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. The files date from 1959 when Lee Harvey Oswald sought defection to the Soviet Union. Each original Russian language KGB document is accompanied by a translation later made by the United States Department of State. The entire point of KGB interference with the West was CounterIntel... provide info that keeps them spinning in circles Nor are we even given faked contemporaneous reports from the CIA stating they overheard the Russians they were spying on - including Kostikov - say anything about the American who visited them. The Kostikov meeting never happened Ben... It was assumed from a very poor transcript Helms states in a 7/2/64 memo to Rankin that while Oswald thought he spoke with Kostikov he actually spoke with Yatskov, Kostikov's superior... It was Win Scott who pushed the Kostikov connection... as stated, assumptions were made... Memorandum to Mr. Sullivan RE: LED HARVEY OSWALD • Source FEDORA, we know that Brykin is in the 13th Department of KGB. Since Brykin is with this Department, CIA has suggested the possibility that Kostikov is also associated with the 13th Department. We have agreed that this is possible. Neither we nor CIA have absolutely established that Kostikov is specifically connected with the 13th Department. I see the Aussies and MacFarland's like I see Bledsoe... information was provided to them which allowed them to make statements that betrays the validity of their testimony. Describing the 1959 passport stamps is akin to Bledsoe describing the torn arrest shirt on a bus prior to his changing the shirt, getting into a fight and having the shirt buttons torn off and shirt ripped... she could not have seen that shirt at any time prior to his going home. Since Oswald was not there, he did not meet Kostikov. DAP arrives in Mexico Oct 7th... All this begins to occur Oct 8th... just sayin'

HSCA interview with Odio: When you looked at those pictures with Hosty, what was your recollection, then, when you were looking at those pictures then, as to the man that J came to your door in September, 1963? The Witness. He was the same guy. Mr. McDonald. Was there any doubt in your mind? The Witness. No. I wish. Mr. McDonald. Did you immediately recognize him? The Witness. Immediately. ..... there any changes? The Witness. Well, the only thing was, he was wearing that baggy shirt that looked really baggy on him. Mr. McDonald. He was wearing it when? The Witness. When he came to see me, and he was wearing well-fitted shirts when I saw him in the picture. Mr. McDonald. But the facial expression of the face itself? The Witness. His face, and the little smile was there; everything was there. Mr. McDonald. So, when Hosty showed you this (Dec 1963), what did you say to Hosty when he showed you the pictures? The Witness. He said: "Do you recognize him?" He told me to — in several pictures, he asked me to pinpoint where I was seeing Oswald. So, I showed him. Mr. McDonald. What did he say when you identified him? The Witness. He did not say very much. He said they would be contacting me again. Mr. McDonald. Did they? The Witness. No; not until the summer. HOSTY AND ODUM interviewed ODIO Dec 18, 1963 and with this information did not talk to her again until weeks before the report was published... and of course I will be told that was just fine, no indication of anything nefarious on the FBI's part... "While the FBI had not yet completed its investigation into this matter at the time the report went to press, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was not at Mrs. Odio's apartment in September of 1963" WCR Sept 1964 Miami, Florida October 2, 1964 (1 week after WCR presented to Johnson) LEE HARVEY OSWALD It is recalled that SYLVIA ODIO has advised that on an evening in the latter part of September, 1963, she was visited at her apartment in Dallas„ Texas, by two Cubans or Mexicans, accompanied by an American whom she believed to be LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Upon viewing the photographs of HALL, HOWARD, SEYMOUR and CASTRO, Mrs. ODIO stated that none of these individuals were identical with the three persons, including the individual she believed to be OSWALD,

I'm sorry Greg but I cannot accept your tautology here. You can't define the options and then say I'm wrong because I didn't prove one of your choices... iv: Oswald was somewhere else and the CIA planted him there using faked calls and/or transcripts of calls that never happened. I already know that the FBI's asset OCHOA fabricated evidence. I already see how the hotel registry was manipulated and the interviews of those at this hotel terribly conflicting I already see how DURAN - who's job it was to assist visa seekers - cannot even tell us which of a few passport/visa photographers she sends the people she helps... nor could the FBI find one The repeated wholesale fabrications of Mexico based events involving Oswald - all of which never happened... such as de la PAZ, ALVARADO, VILLANOVA, COBB, VALENCIA, TO NAME A FEW... In the work I completed I started out in the first 2 chapters with the feeling that there may have been an imposter and it may have been Lee as opposed to Harvey... but I soon realized that wasn't the case. (We also have the multiple sightings of Oswald in south Texas interviewing at radio stations with a wife and 2 small children... the Alice Texas and area reports) I realized that the FBI was fabricating the story of his journey. And continued my writing from there... as time went on and more information was released my initial hypothesis was proven and a new hypothesis emerged... no the FBI offered journey was not real but now I asked whether a person impersonated Oswald at all given the complete lack of evidence and the numerous fabricated stories the CIA offer to get him there... was all this simply some means of hedgin their bets, the CIA, as well as doping some of the things mentioned in State Secret and other related writings...? You make statements and ask questions in your reply which require the time tested poor excuse for a response in this case... "Does this make sense to you?" and "Why would they do that?" The reality again is THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED, that was how it went down... you can read into the situation what you like, and you do, but I am not asking WHY? they happened but "what does what happened mean in the context of all the other related evidence?" It feels as if you do not want to look at the entire puzzle but just want to know why a certain piece is shaped a certain way... I don't know the answers to that... but I can speculate as to what it all means as a whole... as I've tried to do. You can make assumptions to address these questions but many of your comments are supposition and guesswork on your part... again, a great place to start but not sufficient to counter an argument presented with supporting evidence. === I disagree with your conclusion the Odio incident happen on the 25th when all the evidence points to the 26th... It is MALCOLM PRICE who places Oswald at the range on the 28th... Mr. LIEBELER. The Commission has information to the effect that sometime during November 1963, you saw a gentleman at the rifle range whom you subsequently came to believe was Lee Harvey Oswald; is that correct?Mr. PRICE. That's right. The first time that I saw this person was in September, the last week--the last Saturday of September, and that was the afternoon that they opened the rifle range.Mr. LIEBELER. On the last Saturday of September?Mr. PRICE. Yes.Mr. LIEBELER. That would be September 28?Mr. PRICE. Yes.Mr. LIEBELER. Tell me the circumstances under which you first saw this fellow?Mr. PRICE. Well, it was just about dusky dark and he came in in an old model car, I would judge it was possibly a 1940 or 1941 model Ford.Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anyone with him?Mr. PRICE. No; he was by himself, and I have heard that he couldn't drive, but he was driving that day because he was the only one in the car, and he came down and inquired if there was anyone there that could set a scope, a telescope on a rifle, and I told him that I could, and he said, well--he had one that he had had mounted and boresighted but it hadn't been fired on a range and that he would like to have it sighted in, so I went down and set up a target on a hundred yards.Actually, he set the target up himself and I drove my car and turned the headlights on on the target and as I proceeded to set the rifle--I fired the rifle approximately 12 to--12 to 18 times I would say and zeroed it in on a hundred yards and Mr. Davis came in from work before we left and he also drove his pickup down and turned his lights on. He drove his pickup down on the opposite side and turned his lights on the target. I cannot tell you where he was from the 30th to the 4th... But I know for sure he was not in Mexico or on any trip to and from Mexico based on the entirety of the evidence I've seen. Hope that suffices... If you can support your speculation with evidence please do... otherwise we're just kinda talking about what's possible... and virtually anything is possible in this case...

Thank you Greg... Wanted to let you know I'll give your reply some time... Just very preoccupied at the time... please bear with.... thx... State Secret and related material may give you the answer you are looking for better than I. DJ

Finally on the subject of these calls I'd like to offer this: The wholesale manipulation of the record to further implicate Oswald... Shameful really. This is SLAWSON to COLEMAN from the M.Blunt collection thanks for Bart... (hoping he is well) I am at a loss for what #3 is about... but I get the sense there was a lot more false transcripts designed to implicate Oswald that were not used, yet obviously heard... SLAWSON was convinced by CIA that Oswald was down there yet at the same time he says things like he never heard Oswald's voice before so how would I know if it was Oswald I listened to? Instead he writes that the voice "sounded like I'd expect his voice to sound" rif 179-40006-10049. I only have pages 1, the cover page and this one, page 2. The Subject is "Appendix on LHO in Mexico: Comments on fFirst Draft"

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20—The Central Intelligence Agency secretly tape‐recorded two telephone conversations between Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City some eight weeks before President Kennedy was shot to death on Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Government sources familiar with the events said today. Ben, Kinda cool how "just for fun" can illuminate more of the conflicts in the record... The following is the attachments list from a memo from HELMS to Hoover/Papich about the call transcripts his CIA had to offer. the ones that FBI agents said did not sound at all like Oswald... Tarasoff was CIA contract and did all the Russian translation, his wife the Spanish... which the call on the 27th was supposedly in... Attachments: A. 28 Sep 63 transcript. B. transcript of 3 calls 27 Sept, 1 on 1 Oct and 1 on 3 Oct. That's 6 calls... and the FBI puts Oswald on a bus the morning of Oct 2nd.

Ben... this is the relevant passage in that letter... they are not agreeing or stating he was at the consulate... they are "referring to the reports in the press" and talking about how they will handle them with MFA in Mexico. These reports just like the article you posted from 1975, are just uncorroborated press reports.. but the Russians would not take that opportunity to begin arguing with the US and world press over whether he was there or not. I see this as going along to get along... when the other internal reports say he was not there as Sandy pointed out... I believe we have to take each word seriously. How I see it btw - was not referring to you with the pushback comment... Just seems so many, rather than take the time and read the work or learn the material, would rather just float ideas and have others do the work... Took me 3 years to work thru the docs to write those chapters... kinda hard to paraphrase in a post the mountain of BS the FBI put in those docs. And ask yourself... why have you never heard of Hernandez OCHOA when he single-handedly was responsible for all the evidence given to the FBI about Oswald.

"No significant new evidence". by 1967.... I prefer we call us "Conspiracy Realists" who scientifically put forth conspiracy hypotheses from which to authenticate or refute the evidence related to this theory... The problem word remains "conspiracy" as most have no real idea what it means.... so the question becomes, "which laws are being broken?" Thanks for the CIA link Lori Legally, a Conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons join together and form an agreement to violate the law, and then act on that agreement. The crime of Conspiracy was created to address the inherent dangers posed to society when people come together and join forces to commit criminal acts.

Too bad we don't have one with Tommy Rowe... The man claimed it was he who told Brewer about the man and it was TOMMY ROWE who moves into Ruby's apartment after he is arrested... Only 2 degrees of separation there... From Penn Jones:

This is the postmark on the NOV 8th dated letter supposedly inside... If that was Nov 12th then it would appear like the "MAR 12" below it... You'd see the #1... there is no "1" in front of that "2"... There is much more about that terrible letter that suggests it was created... but it is good to know they Russians saw this as a fake as well...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=650. These are the reports of Kelley... Mexico is not mentioned once. GRAVES is mistaken (lying is so harsh). And since we have nothing recorded regarding the interrogations is the man mistaken about Kelley also mistaken about Oswald's statement? I'd bet on it. HOLMES lied about virtually everything and a reference to someone else's report that does not have what he says it has in it does not constitute 2nd witness corroboration ... Why all the pushback anyway? I offer hundreds of pages of evidence and analysis which shows he was not there... the men down there even said the only evidence of his being there are the CIA transcripts and the Hotel register... there is simply you can say which overrides LITAMIL 9 & 7 stating he wasn't there.... maybe that was why his evidence about Oswald not being there was suppressed until 2018? And the response is HOLMES and "some guy said"....? So here again from the horse's mouth... FALSE STORY yet he and his FBI produced thousands of pages trying to defend a fictitious trip... New Orleans to AUSTIN to DALLAS to ODIO with Cubans... Wonder why the FBI would want to cover that up 8 weeks before the assassination...

I'd have to say that was pretty definitive.... As I mentioned, the previous memo only dealt with what was being said in the press, not that he had actually been there. Guess the file was better than I thought...

Removed... block/ignore is so much easier and cleaner... my apologies

Ben... Doesn't appear as if they are talking about what to say in regards to the PR that was out there related to Mexico... This was not necessarily what happened, just that that is the story from the US government and press, and this is what we will say about it... I have the LI--- summary reports for September and contemporaneously there was no report of an American contacting the Russian compound... Here is the report with an example of what "leads of operational interest" looks like in the "Exploitation" section of the report.

BTW - in the KGB file I have "Mexico" only appears on one page: [Handwritten number: 721 Top Secret. Copy no. 2 Appendix 2 Draft MEXICO TO THE SOVIET AMBASSADOR 665. I agree with you that you should visit the MFA of Mexico (the minister or his deputy) and say, referring to reports in the press, that Oswald requested the consular division of the Soviet embassy in Mexico for a visa to enter the USSR, that the procedure for obtaining entry visas was explained to him at the consular division, and that afterwards he no longer contacted the Soviet embassy. According to information available at the embassy, the request for the entry of Oswald and his family into the USSR that he made at the Soviet embassy in Washington was turned down. You can reply in the same vein to other relevant questions by members of the Mexican and foreign press. But they do go into the Nov letter (which if you search I show was actually postmarked Nov 2nd... prior to its supposed writing on the 8th.) k03413/GS DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICE OF LANGUAGE SERVICES (Translation Division) [handwritten: 1077/4367 [?] 46 CIPHER TELEGRAM [illegible] 9 40 Special no. 2005 LS no.069206 1-26 JS/BL Russian TOP SECRET [illegible] WASHINGTON 5441954417 54607 REPRODUCTION [handwritten: 27 xl PROHIBITED 136 37 Copy no. 63 HIGHEST PRIORITY Please note Oswald’s letter of November 9, the text of which was transmitted to Moscow, over the line [?] of nearby neighbors. This letter was clearly a provocation: it gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own. It was totally unlike any other letters the embassy had previously received from Oswald. Nor had he ever visited our embassy himself .The suspicion that the letter is a forgery is heightened by the fact that it was typed, whereas the other letters the embassy had received from Oswald before were handwritten. One gets the definite impression that the letter was concocted by those who, judging from everything, are involved in the President’s assassination. It is possible that Oswald himself wrote the letter as it was dictated to him, in return for some promises, and then, as we know, he was simply bumped off after his usefulness had ended. The competent U.S. authorities are undoubtedly aware of this letter, since the embassy’s correspondence is under constant surveillance. However, they are not making use of it for the time being. Nor are they asking the embassy for any information about Oswald himself; perhaps they are waiting for another moment. The question also arises as to whether there is any connection now between the wait-and- see attitude of the U.S. authorities and the ideas conveyed by Thompson (though he himself may not be aware of this connection) on the desirability of some restraint on the part of the Soviet press and gradually hushing up the entire matter of Kennedy’s assassination. Perhaps that is exactly what the federal authorities were inclined to do when they learned all the facts and realized the danger of serious international complications if the interested U.S. groups, including the local authorities in Dallas, continued to fan the hysteria over the “leftist” affiliations of Kennedy’s assassin and the exposCs we would have to issue in this case. The main question now is: should we give the U.S. authorities Oswald’s last letter if they ask for our consular correspondence with him (there is nothing else in it that could be used to compromise us). After weighing all the pros and cons, we are inclined to pass on this letter as well to the authorities if they request all the correspondence, because if we don’t pass it on, the organizers of this entire provocation could use this fa’ct to try casting suspicion on us. Please confirm [receipt]. Agreed upon with A.I. Mikoyan. November 26, 1963 A. Dobrynin

Appreciate the kind words Mart... I hope you continue to enjoy my work... Jim at K&K has been most kind in his support.

Purchased Sept 30... the travel FROM MC up supposedly begins early on the morning of the 2nd with a very strange taxi scene described by the manager on duty from the hotel...

Not aware of the background of Del Norte ticket 13688? What a surprise - right?

Mart... That suitcase was amazingly found in August 1964 and had a lot to do with Leibeler... The bus ticket supposedly found in said suitcase was found to have never been used - back in April 1964

John Kennedy Assassination - Lee Harvey Oswald KGB Files This collection is a set of KGB documents given to President Bill Clinton in 1999 by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. The files date from 1959 when Lee Harvey Oswald sought defection to the Soviet Union. Each original Russian language KGB document is accompanied by a translation later made by the United States Department of State. It's a 164 page document so only half that are unique... and I was always under the impression that the US had such little info on Soviet life that they would relish a written out detailed picture of production capacities and anything else Harvey would care to write about... In 1959 we were still getting their Russian info from Gehlen's National Socialist network... somewhat suspect info at best. I apologize if this is a repeat or already been discussed... DJ

Roe... How about posting what you think with your supporting evidence? Like the rest of us... thx

As to the reality of Harvey and Lee... AINT GONNA LEARN WHAT YOU DONT WANNA KNOW

It is with respect and interest that I post this link to a thread which ended 4+ years ago soon after the records release. I have not done the work necessary to form an educated opinion.. I only offer this as added background for those wishing to dig deeper, quicker. And a very interesting article to start the thread by Bill. On this thread page I sorted and posted the links in the 17/18 release related to NOSENKO.. If you want to get right to it rather than dig through 50,000 links... Maybe someone can help me understand how the work of Leonard McCoy and how he was so instrumental in forming the attitude toward Russian defectors, is not more center stage when discussing moles and defectors of the time...... His 50+ page analysis was not released until 2012... https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10095-10151.pdf Here is Bagley on McCoy https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362 Bagley: Ghost of the Spy Wars THE MCCOY INTERVENTION The SB R&R officer who started the process, Leonard McCoy, was later made deputy chief of CIA’s Counterintelligence Staff (under a new CI Staff chief, previously unconnected with anti-Soviet operations, who had replaced James Angleton). There, he continued fiercely to defend Nosenko’s bona fides5 and, in the guise of cleansing unnecessary old files, destroyed all the CI Staff’s existing file material that (independent of SB Division’s own findings) cast doubt on Nosenko’s good faith.6 TENNENT H. (PETE) BAGLEY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE Not until forty-five years later was McCoy’s appeal declassified and released by the National Archives (NARA) on 12 March 2012 under the JFK Act ‘‘with no objection from CIA.’’ McCoy opened, as we can now see, with his own finding and with a plea: ‘‘After examining the evidence of Nosenko’s bona fides in the notebook,’’ he wrote, ‘‘I am convinced that Nosenko is a bona fide defector. I believe that the case against him has arisen and persisted because the facts have been misconstrued, ignored, or interpreted without sufficient consideration of his psychological failings.’’ The evidence, he said, is that Nosenko is ‘‘not a plant and not fabricating anything at all, except what is required by his disturbed personality.’’ He recommended ‘‘that we appoint a new judge and jury for the Nosenko case consisting of persons not involved in the case so far’’ and proposed six candidates. According to McCoy, it was not only Nosenko’s psychology that should determine his bona fides, but also his reporting. ‘‘The ultimate conclusions must be based on his production,’’ McCoy asserted, specifically claiming to be the only person qualified to evaluate that production. Certain of Nosenko’s reports were important and fresh, he stated, and could not be considered KGB ‘‘throwaway’’ or deception, as the notebook described them Good thing John is so tenacious... FWIW I gave a presentation on Mexico to a small group in SF a number of years back where John and PDScott were there... I was highly encouraged when Scott backed my hypothesis about Oswald never going, and never being down there... The room was a who's who of 1st & 2nd Gen researchers/authors and I do feel as if my work has allowed others to become more comfortable with the idea the entire thing was a False Mystery designed to bolster the Phase 1 story. Also from that thread's page: Was always impressed how BA was able to get to the heart of most any matter... Sincerely.. DJ B. A. Copeland Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) I am of the same opinion of Blunt and Dale when they see to have at least questions concerning Bruce Solie....he's certainly someone to really focus on as far as a hunt for a potential mole. I'm not saying the guy is guilty but certainly some time should be dedicated to him. Bill do you have any opinion of him? Listening to Dale and Blunt's talks (phenomenal IMHO) are really enlightening on Solie and his actions in a few operations at the least. Edited May 4, 2018 by B. A. Copeland