Thomas Graves

perhaps you should refresh your history AND argument.. when it comes to potential events leading to WW3: The Cuban Missile Crises... (see below) Then again, if you were not born then what would you know, eh?http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx David, while it's true that we came very close to World War Three with the Cuban Missle Crisis, I still maintain that we came even closer with the assassination of JFK, given the revelation that the radical right-wing in the USA was responsible for the act. The occupation of Cuba by the USSR was indeed alarming -- but the USA was mostly united on that score. The assassination of a sitting President is even more alarming. If the facts had come out in 1964, I feel certain the USA would have not been united -- we would have been divided -- and therefore much closer to World War Three because (1) Americans would have attacked each other; and (2) the USSR would have perceived a weakness and made some sort of overt move. As for the time period in which I was born (or anybody was born) that is totally immaterial, because the power of historical method allows each of us to gaze upon the facts from the high-level perspective of reason. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Dear Paul, I think you've got it backwards. If anyone thought that we came close to World War iii when JFK was assassinated, it was only an engineered, temporary, illusory danger. It now appears that the plotters either manipulated Oswald into visiting/calling the Russian Embassy in Mexico City (where the KGB's assassinations expert, Valery Kostikov, worked) or had an Oswald impersonator do these things. Whichever was the case, it established a putative Oswald - KGB assassinations connection to make it look like Oswald killed Kennedy for the Russians. The theory is that this was done in order to force LBJ's hand in pushing the "Oswald-did-it-by-himself" scenario (and the attendant cover up), concomitantly providing LBJ with more than enough political/moral leverage to do so, so that the feared WW III could be "avoided." Sincerely, --Tommy

Oh pleez, Paul. . I think you're going way too far in this analysis. What about the 58,000 people whose names are engraved on the Vietnam memorial in Washington, D.C.? (And the 1 million Asians who died in that conflict?) Are we supposed to believe that somehow their deaths too, somehow are invested with some "meaning" because "they" too, functioned as a buffer of sorts, and prevented World War 3? Sorry, but I can't buy into that kind of analysis. At all.... DSL 6/18/13; 8:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California ... However, the closest we came to World War Three was, I will argue, the moment when the truth of the JFK assassination had to be declared to the American People. That is a separate instance and stands alone in history. ... Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Perhaps you should refresh your history AND argument.. when it comes to potential events leading to WW3: The Cuban Missile Crises... (see below) Then again, if you were not born then what would you know, eh? http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx DH, I agree with you. I was twelve years old at the time and my old, wise, teacher (Mr. McEwen?) brought a radio to class so we kids could listen to the developments of the historical event (the Cuban Missile Crisis) which he said had already become the most dangerous event in human history. Only many years later did we learn how incredibly lucky we were to survive it. For example (and from memory), one of the submerged Ruskie submarines with nuclear weapons didn't get the message about not passing the embargo line the U.S. had drawn, and sailed past it. It was "depth charged" with warning grenades by a US destroyer. The submarine's captain wanted to use his nukes against the US ships but his second in command talked him out of it. That's how close we came. --Tommy

I'm 63 and I wish there was something like a "tutorial" here showing us old f***ts how to do (sophisticated?) searches for CIA, FBI, ONI, State Department, etc documents at MF, History Matters, Baylor, the National Archives, etc. You know, how to use RIF numbers, Agency numbers, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...... --Tommy

Ian, OMG! You mean he's gonna develop a synthesis, too? Heaven forbid. --Tommy

No, Paul B., I'm not hi-jacking this thread. It's about the "future of the JFK Forum" in general, and about the dismissal of the moderator Tom Scully (as well as Jim Di Eugenio) in particular. Part of the reason for Tom's dismissal was that he harrassed my posts -- he didn't criticize them with facts or counter-arguments, but with insults and accusations. Tom Scully led a counter-culture of insults and accusations on this Forum in recent months, often in response to my opinions. That is self-evident from threads in 2013. Now, IMHO, the future of the JFK Forum will be characterized by the sort of exchange that I engage here with Raymond -- we disagree sharply, but neither of us stoops to name-calling, insults or accusations. Thus this thread is also partly a demonstration of the kind of decorum that John Simkin explicitly demands for his web site in this very thread. I'm quite aware that my opinions are controversial -- they challenge most other positions out there. I don't take an Either/Or approach (either Oswald was innocent or guilty with no middle term; or, either the Warren Commission was correct or was a coup'd'etat with no middle term). My position is a dialectical synthesis, and it's rare anywhere, not just on John Simkin's Education Forum on JFK. So, no, I'm not hi-jacking this thread -- I'm pushing it forward. And finally, I think my double-response to Raymond regarding Oswald's "motive" merits a response. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Dear Paul, Nice spin job. Sincerely, --Tommy

Paul, How many mistakes is one allowed to pass off as mistakes or misstatement? Some of the finest, most knowledgeable and most articulate members of the forum have been engaged in a concerted and prolonged campaign of correcting your mistakes, including subject matter specialists. Hours of wasted time with little constructive dialogue, indeed. How many mistakes can one reasonably make before the term xxxx is appropriate? If not xxxx, then how many mistakes can one reasonably make before their posts are deemed too lacking in facts to be taken seriously. If that person is one of the most relentless posters on the forum then what does, the constant mistake maker, do to the quality of the forum? [emphasis added by T. Graves] Why, thank you, Gary! (LOL) --Tommy PS I don't think Paul is a xxxx per se. I just think that he writes way too much stuff "from memory" (because he's evidently always in a big rush to "counter" his opponents in "the grand debate" and therefore makes a lot of mistakes) and that he has a really, really, really hard time admitting that he even made a mistake in the first place, much less thanking anyone for pointing out said mistakes to him.

Dear Ian, In my humble opinion, it's nothing but figments of imagination, a tempest in a teapot. After all, isn't it a bit much to ask that we assume that Oswald (or whoever created it as a so-called red herring) believed that such a complicated message would be decoded quickly enough by The Intended Recipient to effect the freeing of Oswald and/or the capturing of the bad guys in a timely manner? LOL It's scary to imagine that if The Intended Recipient had made a deciphering mistake, he could very well have come up with a permuted anagram for "H-O-G-W-A-S-H." Sincerely, --Tommy

Dear Paul, You've confused the anti-Castro Cuban, Carlos Bringuier, with New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello. Warmest regards, --Tommy I noticed my speed-typing typo, Tommy, and I'd corrected it some hours ago. I'll take this opportunity, though, to express some gratitude for this thread, because I really like your question, "If Oswald Was an Intelligence Agent of Some Sort, How Was He Manipulated Into Being a Patsy?" It helps the reader focus on the real, historical personality of Lee Harvey Oswald. It clarifies that although Lee Oswald was close to the intelligence community, he was never fully accepted by them. It also allows me to articulate my opinion about Lee Oswald as a complex character. He beat Marina when they lived in Texas, but not when they lived in Minsk or in New Orleans. Thus he was not a "wife beater" as such, but only during a particular period of a particular stress that the Dallas Russian Community exerted upon him, IMHO. Also, he was very talented -- and very flawed. Perhaps his youth was his main flaw. Nevertheless, I continue to maintain that the official Intelligence community is innocent of the patsification and the death of Lee Harvey Oswald. The perpetrators of the patsification of Lee Oswald were the same perpetrators of the assassination of JFK. These were not, IMHO, government officials, but private individuals. The main goal of these private individuals was the invasion of Cuba and the death of Fidel Castro. The perpetrators convinced themselves and each other that the death of JFK would inspire the USA to invade Cuba. (Those who hated JFK would invade Cuba once free of JFK's shackles, and those who loved JFK would invade Cuba out of revenge for JFK's death by an alleged Communist. That was the dream.) But in the minutes before Lee Harvey Oswald was captured, countless newsmen and readers around the USA were certain that the right-wing radicals in the USA were the JFK killers. It was critical that the people must be thrown a patsy to throw them off the trail. The foresight of planning to make Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy of the JFK assassination was a stroke of brilliance that has no precedence in US history. (It had been done in Europe before, but not in the USA until 1963.) Yet the perpetrators of the JFK assassination learned the hard way -- very few believed that the Communists killed JFK. Most folks knew that the USSR and Cuba had more to lose with any other American President than with JFK. Very few believed that Oswald was really a Communist -- that's the bottom line. The USA was not tempted to invade Cuba. (For a while we were tempted to invade the John Birch Society book stores.) In answer to your thread's question, Tommy, Lee Harvey Oswald could be made into the patsy for the JFK plot precisely because he was not an Intelligence agent; rather, he was an outspoken, pushy youngster who wanted to be a 007 spy, and not a real spy who works his ordinary low wage job and lays low for years at a time. Lee Harvey Oswald could be made into a patsy because he was too ambitious, and too gullible. Guy Banister completely pulled the wool over the eyes of Lee Harvey Oswald. The entire New Orleans episode is the story of how Guy Banister & Co. used newspaper, radio and television to make Lee Harvey Oswald appear to be an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans. Yet even the Warren Commission acknowledged that Oswald's FPCC chapter was a fake. It's always amazing to me how people who claim to be conservative and who accept the Warren Commission with all its errors, still miss this key point -- Oswald's FPCC chapter in New Orleans was a fake! And therefore, Oswald was a fake Communist. And therefore, it should be clear that the entire FPCC episode in New Orleans was precisely the episode that transformed Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Dear Paul, So your mistakes were just speed-typing "typos" (where you twice hit the keys that spelled out B-R-I-N-G-U-I-E-R instead of M-A-R-C-E-L-L-O) and, more importantly, you noticed them all by yourself ! Well, are you in the habit of reading your posts for mistakes right after you post them, or do you wait a couple of hours, first, Paul? When I first posted about your two identical "typos," they were still visible (and had been visible for about three hours), and you were lurking on this thread at the time. How Ironic that we would both notice your "typos" at the same time! Warmest regards, --Tommy PS I'm glad you like the title of the thread.

Dear Paul, You've confused the anti-Castro Cuban, Carlos Bringuier, with New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello. Warmest regards, --Tommy

Yes, Ian. I am blushing. For Robert's sake. I feel sorry for him, one track mind and all. --Tommy PS: And speaking of "building a career on it," let's not forget Elvis "The Pelvis" Presley! Hey, maybe that's it! Maybe Robert is just a frustrated, wannabe 1950's-style rock star!

Robert, "HAVING SEX"? Could you have said, "Hugh Aynesworth had a romantic relationship with Marina Oswald"? Or perhaps, "He had a one night stand with Marina Oswald"? Or perhaps "a tryst" or "a fling"? Could you have said that? Or did you really, really, really feel that you absolutely had to use the phrase "HAVING SEX"? Do you think you appear more "macho" by talking about this biological activity so bluntly and so often in your posts? Sincerely, --Tommy

Larry, I assume you mean that Oswald went to Mexico City for a reason other than to get into Cuba. Thanks, --Tommy

Thanks Larry, I only wonder how Oswald could have afforded, out of his own pocket, to consort with the bar girls at such expensive joints as The Queen Bee. But then again, if the girls with whom Oswald was hanging out were really Soviet agents pumping him for information, they probably gave him a big discount! Also, there is that documented case of V.D. which he contracted "in the line of duty." In the line of duty as a "volunteer informant"? Sounds a little contradictory to me! Regardless, I do like the notion that Oswald was a perennial Volunteer... Sincerely, --Tommy

Thanks Larry, I ordered Shadow Flights a couple of days ago from Amazon. On a slightly different tack, it's interesting that John Newman, on page 55 of Oswald and the CIA, apparently thinks that it's possible that Oswald defected (or tried to defect and changed his mind?) on his own and that a CIA operation was then built around it while Oswald was still in Russia. " [The placing of Oswald on the CIA's HT/LINGUAL 'Watch List' on November 9, 1959, nine days after he'd told the U.S. Consul that he intended to defect and give the Soviets some radar secrets 'of special interest'] proves Oswald's status and makes his late 201 file issue all the more controversial. The talk about needing a “trigger” for a 201 on Oswald is silly because of his presence in the Watch List. The absence of a 201 file [for almost a full year] was a deliberate act, not an oversight. Moreover, this particular configuration of being on the Watch List without a 201 is an other anomaly which encourages speculation about whether LHO's defection could have been designed as part of a U.S. Operation from the beginning, or if an operation was built around his defection after the fact. " [emphasis added] I'm curious to know what are your thoughts on this, Larry. Personally, I think it's an intriguing idea because, if Oswald really did "defect" on his own, it's possible that he did it as an earnest, but foolish, U.S. Super Patriot who wanted to become a highly-valued spy. Thanks, --Tommy

Ian, A boy and his son? Sincerely, --Tommy PS Good article, Douglas. Thanks for posting it.

Robert, FWIW (just guessing here), maybe it means the closest to dead center, i.e. the "best" shot, was 3 inches away from it, whereas the "worst" shot was 5 inches away from dead center. If so, then I suppose it could be said that all the shots were in a 2-inch wide ring (technically not a circle, but two circles sharing the same center) that started 3 inches from the center and extended out to 5 inches from the center. --Tommy . Mr. Graves It is a bit hard to explain but, the grouping of bullets does not have anything to do with the distance on the target those bullets are away from the bulls eye centre. A rifle's sights or scope can always be adjusted to bring the point of impact to the bulls eye, but grouping is a different matter altogether. A group of shots can be as far from the bulls eye on the target as you can get (even off the target onto the panel the target is pinned to) but, if they are all within a 1" circle, the rifle is accurate and the bullets are loaded with the correct type and weight of powder. Here is a link to a page that will explain the grouping measurement process: http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/article.cfm?tocid=1375&magid=95 Robert, Thank you. Yes, of course. Grouping. How silly of me. Well, hopefully Mr. Purvis can and will enlighten us as to what SA Frazier meant! --Tommy

Robert, FWIW (just guessing here), maybe it means the closest to dead center, i.e. the "best" shot, was 3 inches away from it, whereas the "worst" shot was 5 inches away from dead center. If so, then I suppose it could be said that all the shots were in a 2-inch wide ring (technically not a circle, but two circles sharing the same center) that started 3 inches from the center and extended out to 5 inches from the center. --Tommy .

Larry, John Newman wrote in Oswald and the CIA, "There is circumstantial evidence that Oswald gave away something the Soviets used. The U-2 flew thirty penetration flights over Soviet territory between June 1956 and May 1960. Twenty-eight flights occurred prior to Oswald's defection in October 1959. After his defection, the next U-2 flight on April 9, 1960, was successful, but the one after that, on May 1, was shot down. The pilot, Francis Gary Powers, survived, and his own analysis suggests that Oswald betrayed the height at which the U-2 flew. In Powers view, Oswald's work with the new MPS 16 height-finding radar looms large." (My copy is dated 2008, but I'm guessing this passage can be traced back to the original version which came out in 1995.) Larry, to your knowledge what have we learned about this subject from the documents that have been released since 1995? Thanks, --Tommy

Yes, John! Pretty please with sugar all over it! LOL --Tommy

Gee, Tommy, I wasn't aware that one of the conditions for contributing to your thread was human perfection. When I make a mistake I admit it promptly. That's how I was raised, and that's my criterion for courtesy. If you only accept error-free contributors on your thread, then you should have said so at the start. I sure hope you can live up to your error-free standard. Regards, --Paul Trejo Dear Paul, Look on the bright side-- at least I didn't call you an "outright xxxx." LOL Warmest regards, --Tommy

[...] Dear Robert, The problem is, on this forum one man's "outright lie" is often times another man's "honest mistake" or poorly-stated "belief." In other words, generally speaking-- A ) Would an over-enthusiastic Conspiracy Theorist who, for whatever reason, couldn't seem to get his facts straight (or just poorly stated his mistaken beliefs), be considered an "outright xxxx" or an "embellisher" by his peers at the JFK Assassination Debate? No. "The poor guy just can't get his facts straight. Too bad he's screwing it up a little for the beginners here." Or worse, "Wow! I didn't know that!" On the other hand, B ) Would an over-enthusiastic "Lone Nut" Theorist who couldn't get his facts straight be considered an "outright xxxx" or an "embellisher?" by his peers on this forum? Generally speaking, yes. "He's a shill, a disinfo specialist, a CIA agent!!!" Although I personally have little tolerance for anyone that can't get their facts straight (ironic coming from me because I've made my share of mistakes here!), that doesn't mean that I automatically consider them to be a xxxx. I just consider him or her to be over-enthusiastic, ill-informed, careless person. Sincerely, --Tommy Sorry, I must have clicked on the wrong button before or after I edited one word! Please believe me, it was an "honest mistake!" Didn't mean to preempt you, Mark! LOL

[...] Dear Robert, The problem is, on this forum one man's "outright lie" is often times another man's "honest mistake" or poorly-stated "belief." In other words, generally speaking-- A ) Is an over-enthusiastic Conspiracy Theorist who, for whatever reason, can't seem to get his facts straight (or just poorly states his mistaken beliefs), considered a "xxxx" or an "embellisher" by his peers at the JFK Assassination Debate? No. "The poor guy just can't get his facts straight. Too bad he's screwing it a little for the beginners here." Or, even worse, "Wow! I didn't know that!" On the other hand, B ) Is an over-enthusiastic "Lone Nut" Theorist who can't get his facts straight considered a "xxxx" or an "embellisher?" by his peers on this forum? Generally speaking, yes. "He's a shill, a disinfo specialist, a CIA agent!!!" Although I personally have little tolerance for anyone on this forum that can't get their facts straight (ironic coming from me because I've made my share of mistakes here!), that doesn't mean that I automatically consider them to be a xxxx. I just consider him or her to be an overly-enthusiastic, ill-informed, careless person. Sincerely, --Tommy

David, Well, I guess that means we shouldn't tar and feather you and/or Gary. Darn! LOL Sincerely, --Tommy

Robert, Ahhh, yes. Time for some more comic relief! No wonder you're so well disciplined! I'm surprised she didn't drill into you the correct spelling for "sergeant," though. LOL --Tommy LOL I believe it is the American influence we Canadians suffer living in such close proximity to our American brethren. I actually had to look the word up and must have Googled an American site. "You say po-ta-to....and I say po-tat-o........." dear Gary, I consider it very important, actually. Free speech and privileges and even-handedness and all that. Especially since it appears Jimmy D. may have already been reinstated. I don't know if he has posting privileges but he is visible lurking on this thread right now. I guess he misses us! Hi Jimbo!!! Sincerely, --Tommy

Robert, Ahhh, yes. Time for some more comic relief! No wonder you're so well disciplined! I'm surprised she didn't drill into you the correct spelling for "sergeant," though. LOL --Tommy PS Please do not consider this a personal attack! And note-- I used no profanity!