Lynne Foster

It sounds like you rely on John McAdams for all your information. Who the hell is Weberman?

Why are you being silly? Isn't it a good theory? In the first place, Oswald was 'just a patsy'. In the second, it looks like he had significant contact with both Sturgis and Hunt. In the third place, Oswald, Hunt and Sturgis were in Dealy Plaza on November 22nd, 1963. In the fourth place, Howard had a "psychological manipulator" reputation. In the sixth place, Oswald was the "official" patsy. In the seventh place, Oswald did not shoot the President, even though extraordinary lengths were taken to "prove" otherwise. I think the letter to Mr. Hunt is more significant in the context of a confrontation between Frank Sturgis and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Does this fit? Having gotten into a fistfight with Lee Harvey Oswald, Frank Sturgis determined that he would make a perfect patsy, and he asked Howard Hunt to "prep" him, which explains the letter from an unsuspecting, Lee Harvey Oswald, asking Mr. Hunt about his "official capacity". Sounds like Oswald had to wait until November 22nd, 1963, to determine his "official capacity."

Despite the fact that Jim Garrison was a total fraud, Oliver Stone needed him because he had hijacked all the best conclusions of genuine critics like Weisberg and Epstein and provided Stone the opportunity to focus without spending a lifetime, trying to uncover the truth. What I find fascinating about Oliver Stone's movie, if memory serves me correct, is that he discerned the actual motivation(s) that claimed Kennedy's life, despite the fact that Garrison was more interested in misleading rather than informing the public. In the final analysis, disinformation agents like John McAdams, Gerald Posner and Jim Garrison have failed to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assassination, because every fraud has generated a counter-response. Jim Garrison was countered by those who recall the historical record of critics like Epstein, Gerald Posner was countered by Harold Weisberg who wrote Case Open and John McAdams is countered by every independent researcher who challenges the propaganda he promotes. With every discussion, I think we inch closer and closer to the truth, as long as the people participating are genuinely concerned about discovering it. Unfortunately, I think that Posner's apologists, the disinformation that McAdams promotes and Garrison's apologists make the road unecessarily bumpy, not because they are not intelligent, but because they seek to control rather than to learn and to educate the public.

Interesting resume Frank Sturgis a.k.a. Frank Angelo Fiorino Frank Angelo Fiorini Frank A. Fiorini Frank Anthony Sturgis Frank A. Sturgis Frank Sturgis Frank Bonnelli Frank Campbell code names: Federini Barbarossa Samson born 9 December 1924 in Norfolk, Va. United States of American citizenship CHRONOLOGICAL SKETCH OF RESIDENCES AND EMPLOYMENT OF: Frank Sturgis present address: 2515 N.W. 122nd Street Miami, Florida 33167 also known as: Frank Anthony Sturgis Frank A. Sturgis Frank Angelo Fiorini Frank A. Fiorini Frank Fiorini Frank Angelo Fiorino 1924, Dec. 9--------------------born in Norfolk, Va 1930-1942----------------------resided at 510 High Street, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. 1942-1945----------------------U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (Paris is., S.C.; Pacific theater) 1945----------------------------honorable discharge-Klamouth Falls, Ore. 1945----------------------------Miami, Florida c.1945-1948--------------------Norfolk, Va. adrs: Bank St., etc. joined Norfolk Police Dept. attended William and Mary College also attended Virginia Polytechnic Institute c.1946-employed as manager of the Virginia Tavern on East Main Street c.1949-employed as owner and manager of the Whitehorse Tavern on East Main Street c.1948--------------------------enlisted in the U.S. Naval Reserve at Norfolk Naval Air Station c.1949---------------------------honorable discharge c.1949-1950--------------------U.S. Merchant Marine traveling to and from Europe. c.1950-1952--------------------U.S. Army - stationed in Germany c.1952---------------------------honorable discharge c.1952-1954--------------------owner-manager of Tophat Nightclub in Virginia Beach, Va. c.1956-1961--------------------Cuba (Sierra Maestra); Miami, Florida; Mexico; Venezuela, Costa Rica; Guatemala; Panama; Honduras; Bahama Is. 1958: contact with CIA at US Consulate-Santiago, Cuba 1959: contact with FBI HQ - Washington, DC 1961-1970: Bay of Pigs - CIA control officer Sam Jenis [sanjenis]

I hate to admit it, but I kind of freaked out when I read about the fight, it was one of those rare, "holy xxxx" moments that scholars call "eureka". I can just picture Sturgis telling Richard Nixon that he had found the perfect patsy.

I think you are wrong. Richard Nixon's actions had no more to do with revenge than Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, who volunteered their services to assassinate Castro. This is about their deep-seated beliefs, I think you fundamentally misunderstand an assassin like Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon believed that it would be detrimental to American Foreign Policy to expose the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Do you agree with Richard Nixon?

I disagree

My question was directed to someone else. Since when did you become their spokesperson? As for my response to Ron, I thought he was teasing, confused or other, I have no idea why he said what he did. Now I apologize for being too hard on Nixon for YOUR liking, but as far as I am concerned, I have not been hard enough. CHILL

I can't wait. (He sure found that "t" pretty fast!) Now you have me confused. Is it Mat Wilson, or is it Matt Wilson? ...or is it Lynne Fostter?? Can I have "an opinion of substance", please? Who do you think is responsible for the Kennedy assassination?

I can't wait. (He sure found that "t" pretty fast!) Now you have me confused. Is it Mat Wilson, or is it Matt Wilson?

There is no provision, under the current system, for climbing over dead bodies. Len, I don't think that a textbook analysis does any more than distort the truth here.

Since "Mat Wilson" has now become something of an institution on this forum, just who the hell is he? (If he's not Lynne Foster.) He can't even spell his first name right. He needs to plagiarize a "t" from somewhere and add it on. sorry Ron, you are going to have to wait for the anwer to that. I did a search for you and mattwilson.com is under construction.

Purvis, it's best not to respond to personal attacks, it's a waste of time, but this, I found interesting: Frank Sturgis and lee Harvey Oswald were in a fistfight prior to the Kennedy assassination. Looks like the patsy was carefully chosen -and that is reputed to be the first connection between Watergate and the kennedy assassination. Now that's what I call interesting, ignore the personal attacks.

I did a search to try to find something on O'reilly and Sturgis and I didn't find anything, but this turned up: But in 1963, Sturgis did report to the FBI that he had a "fistfight" with Lee Harvey Oswald. This report was the first link discovered between the JFK assassination and Watergate. That ties in nicely with all the other references that connect the Kennedy assassination and Watergate. I hope you all did not know about this reported fistfight because it's all news to me, and I do not want to bore you here.

Mark I gotta agree with Tim on one point. JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions Len, that is a very silly, political statement you are making. Political views get in the way of exposing the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If you believe that John F. Kennedy denied Richard Nixon the opportunity to screw up American foreign policy in 1960, then what you say [JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions] sounds like it is an absolutely stupid statement. If, on the other hand, you believe [as the smoking gun tape strongly suggests] that exposing the truth about the Kennedy assassination is a detriment to American foreign policy, then you are likely to deceive yourself, for the sake up maintaining your American, foreign policy views. I am more interested in the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy than in your political views. Lynne you seem to have rading comprehension problems. Nowhere did I say I support Nixon quite the contrary. The question is wether or not knowing what was known in 1963 if the assassination of JFK would have been expected to increase or decrease Nixon's chances of getting elected in 64 or 68. Nixon was all about power and control, whether in or out of the White House. If Nixon thought that the murder of the president was detrimental to his political interests, he would have warned President John F. Kennedy. It's really that simple.

Mark I gotta agree with Tim on one point. JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions Len, that is a very silly, political statement you are making. Political views get in the way of exposing the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. If you believe that John F. Kennedy denied Richard Nixon the opportunity to screw up American foreign policy in 1960, then what you say [JFK's assassination was detrimental to Nixon's presidential ambitions] sounds like it is an absolutely stupid statement. If, on the other hand, you believe [as the smoking gun tape strongly suggests] that exposing the truth about the Kennedy assassination is a detriment to American foreign policy, then you are likely to deceive yourself, for the sake up maintaining your American, foreign policy views. I am more interested in the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy than in your political views.

Pat - I didn't see anything in that excert about blackmailing the CIA. What documentaion is there supoorting the idea that Goldwater and Bush pushed Nixon because of that quote? I doubt Bush was much of power in the party he couldn't even get the nomination. Howard Hunt had worked for the CIA and the blackmail is by association, more than by direct involvement.

Thanks for that insight Ron, I thought I was on to original research here.

Lynne, it's not so much your views that are upsetting people. It's just that you're kind of like a an over-eager bull in a china shop. Most of the people here have been discussing this information for years. The transcript you described as "incredible" is in fact what is known as 'the smoking gun tape." Why? Because it was that little passage you cited where Nixon talks about Hunt that led to his resignation. When the power behind the Republican party, including Barry Goldwater and George Bush, read that transcript, it was bye-bye Nixon. No way did they want an impeachment trial where he would have to explain what he meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing. No way did they want him to explain why he was blackmailing the CIA. Probably every person here has read this passage and has analyzed its every word. Tim Carroll created an online seminar last year called "The Bay of Pigs Thing" in which he tracked down the links between Watergate and the Assassination. I do agree that the memo on Hunt is significant. If you look at the date of Colson's memo, it was several months before Hunt was officially hired by the White House. What were these "special assignments" Colson referred to? One of them most logically involved buttering up Howard Hughes, the biggest client of the PR firm where Hunt worked. But what were the others? Was Hunt digging dirt up on Ted Kennedy BEFORE he was even working at the White House? Maybe you can contact Colson and find out? "smoking gun tape" is a good way to describe it. Thanks for the info, I just wish that others were as helpful.

Mat Wilson's article makes a great deal of sense and sheds a great deal of insight into a typical plot that involved members both in and out of government -making it practically impossible to produce a reliable, "official" record, to expose the operation. This memo dated January 12, 1971, from Charles W. Colson to George Ball, is quite interesting: "Put in a request immediately for Mr. and Mrs. Howard Hunt, Witches Island, Potomac, to be afterdinner guests at the dinner for Juan Carlos. Hunt was the head of all our intelligence operations in Spain. His wife is presently the Spanish Ambassador's secretary. Howard is a staunch Republican who is now in the PR business on the outside and is beginning to take on a number of special assignments for us of a very sensitive nature. It is very important politically that we let him know that he is in the family and this happens to be a unique occasion as far as he and his wife are concerned." I do not think that Mat Wilson went far enough in his expose of the Nixon/Hunt relationship. I mean, this transcript of a recorded meeting with Nixon and Haldeman in the Oval office on June 23, 1972 is incredible: Nixon: ...very bad to have this fellow Hunt, ah, you know, ah, it's, he, he knows too damn much and he was involved, we happen to know that. And that it gets out that the whole, this is all involved in the Cuban thing, that it's a fiasco, and it's going to make the FB-ah, CIA look bad, it's going to make Hunt look bad, and its likely to blow the whole, uh, Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for the CIA and for the country at this time, and for American foreign policy, and he just better tough it and lay it on them Isn't that what you

Purvis, do you have anything to say about Jim Garrison, specifically his meeting with Johnny Roselli? Now that's what I would call relevant to this thread.

Sorry, I do not have time to post on EVERY thread.

John: Just how long are you going to allow this nitnit to literally ruin this forum? SHe has now managed to accuse everyone here of being everything from a Nixon supporter to trying to sabotage the investigation of the assassination. This used to be a serious forum but the last few days it's been a joke: a sad joke. And this is not just my opinion, several people from the forum were privately in touch last evening about this. Dawn [quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Nov 14 2005, 08:16 AM' post='45215'] You do belong to the group of 5% of Americans who can remember what "WIN" meant. Tim: Surely you jest? Who could FORGET "Whip Inflation Now"? Don't you remember how succesful all those pins were against inflation? Ford was so innovative; a genius Dawn This is just plain silliness. By the way Dawn, if you study that UPI photograph of Richard Nixon, you will find that he looks just like a hobo. Do you think that Howard Hunt rubbed off on him? How long have you been trying to ban me from this message board and why? She said she was 'amazed at the similarities' that doesn't mean she thought it was him. It could even be understood to mean the opposite. If you showed my wife pictures of me taken years before she would probably say 'That's him' if you showed her pictures of someone else who looked a lot like me she would probably say something like "I'm amazed at the similarities." It would also be valuable to know if she knew him in 1963. If you, I'm assuming you really are Wilson or his partner, show the photo to a recognized and trained forensic photographic analysis and he or she says they're the same person I might agree you are on to something rather than that you are on something. LEN, GIVE IT UP WE OBVIOUSLY DO NOT AGREE.

Nixon didn't run in '64 because he knew he would loose. The loss of the California governor's race was especially embarassing for him and he swore to never run for office again. He hadn't won and election onhis own since 1950 and lost two in a row, people considered him sore looser and LBJ was very popular. I don't even know if he could have gotten the nomination. Was Nixon "in on it"? Was LBJ? Did they make a deal? Again could be but you haven't come up with anything new or compelling. I think you really are Wilson your brain operates on the same faulty logic. Try right clicking the link and chose the "cached snapshot of page" option, if you're lucky you'll get a copy of the page "captured" by Google. You might need the Google toolbar for this to work. I guess you think I am Wilson because I haven't learned to discuss the Kennedy assassination without discussing the killers. It's great to know that you know why Nixon didn't run in 1964, I guess you are a Nixon insider. Next time I have a question about Nixon, I'll just as you. Is he responsible for the murder of John Lennon?