Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sandy Larsen

Admin
  • Posts

    8,796
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sandy Larsen

  1. The Darnell film proves that Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley lied for the Warren Commission. It's naive to think that people don't lie in a coverup. Just like it's naive to think that evidence isn't altered. And it's a disservice to The Cause to preach otherwise.
  2. Pat apparently believes that CIA agents will inform others in the room that they are CIA.
  3. Nope. It's supported by a large amount of circumstantial evidence, of which you are apparently ignorant.
  4. How would you know if there were CIA agents at the autopsy or not? The fact is, the assassination was a plot created by the CIA at the behest of the military (JCS). Of course the generals at the autopsy would have had some CIA present as well.
  5. Ha! This statement from the guy who throws nearly 50 witnesses under the bus for saying they saw a gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head. We aren't the witness bashers here Pat, you are.
  6. So, why is it that the CIA's October 10, 1963 cable to the State Department, FBI, INS, and Department of Navy did the following: Gave the wrong name, Lee HENRY Oswald, for the man who had visited (KGB Assassination chief) Valeriy Kostikov? Gave a completely wrong description for the man who had visited Kostikov? Made it sound like the CIA was unsure of the identity of the man who had visited Kostikov? I believe that the answer is that the CIA didn't want to raise any red flags regarding Lee HARVEY Oswald, who would be working in a tall building located along the future path of President Kennedy's motorcade. At the same time, the existence of the cable would show everyone that the CIA had done its job in reporting Oswald's visit the the Soviet Embassy.
  7. Following are descriptions of the two October 10 cables currently under scrutiny, as well as the October 8 cable from Mexico City that triggered them. (See the original cables at the end of the post.) October 8, 1963 Cable from Mexico City to CIA Headquarters On October 8, 1963, the CIA's Mexico City station sent a cable to the Director of the CIA stating that a Lee Oswald had apparently visited with Valeriy Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy. The cable described him as being age 35, athletic build, 6 ft, receding hairline. Sounds like Mystery Man, the man photographed at the Soviet Embassy.: October 10, 1963 Cable from CIA Headquarters to Mexico City On October 10, 1963, CIA Headquarters sent a cable to the CIA's Mexico City station stating that Lee Oswald is PROBABLY the same person as Lee Henry Oswald, who had defected to Russia in 1959. The cable stated that Lee Henry Oswald was 5 ft 10 in and 165 lb. October 10, 1963 Cable from CIA Headquarters to Other Departments On October 10, 1963, CIA Headquarters sent a cable to the State Department, FBI, INS, and the Department of Navy stating that Lee Oswald MAY be the same person as Lee Henry Oswald, who had defected to Russia in 1959. The cable stated that Lee Oswald (NOT Lee Henry Oswald) had been described as being age 35, athletic build, 6 ft, receding hairline. Discussion There is nothing inconsistent between the two October 10 cables. They are composed differently because they are for different audiences. The one sent to the CIA's Mexico City station is an internal CIA report, and it is confident that the Lee Oswald who visited the Soviet Embassy was the same person as the Lee Henry Oswald who had defected to Russia. (I will address the "Henry" part in a moment.) It therefore reported the known height and weight of Lee Henry Oswald. In contrast, the cable sent to the outside departments is more cautious identifying Lee Oswald, stating that he MAY be the same person as Lee Henry Oswald. It therefore didn't reported the known height and weight of Lee Henry Oswald Having said that, there are two unusual pieces of data that Headquarters sent to everybody (both internal and external). First, that the name of the person who defected to Russia was Lee Henry Oswald, which of course should have been Lee Harvey Oswald. Second, the reported weight of Lee Harvey Oswald is a little high. (The reported height of 5 ft 10 in is okay, given that Oswald's height was measured at 5 ft 9 in and 5 ft 11 in when in the Marine Corps.) Oswald's weight when he left the Marine Corps was 150 lb, 15 lb lighter that the reported 165 lb. Conclusions The only things unusual in these three cables are as follows: CIA Headquarters reported Oswald's name as Lee Henry Oswald. CIA Headquarters reported a weight for Oswald that was about 15 lb heavier than his known, measured weight at the time of his departure from the Marine Corps. Note that the info in the October 8 cable from the Mexico City station was probably fabricated, a part of the CIA's plot to implicate Russia in the assassination. But that's a topic for another thread. Pertinent Parts of Original Cables:
  8. I don't find the difference in those two cables surprising. One was an internal cable, sent to the CIA's Mexico City station. The other was sent to government agencies outside the CIA... the State Department, FBI, INS, and the Department of Navy. The one sent internally was more certain about the identity of the "Lee Oswald" photographed at the Soviet Embassy being the same person as the Lee Oswald who had defected to Russia. In contrast, the cable sent to other agencies was more cautious, stating that the person MAY be the same as the one who had defected. That cable therefore didn't go into detail as to height and weight. I will give more detail in a post to follow.
  9. Isn't the answer to this question obvious? The background on this is that Kennedy's body had been removed from the ornate bronze casket and placed in a shipping casket somewhere along the way from Parkland Hospital and the Bethesda morgue. The shipping casket was brought into hospital by men in dark suits about an hour before the official autopsy began. The body was removed from the shipping casket and pre-autopsy surgery performed. The problem with this plan is that the military honor guard is supposed to bring the casket from the hearse to the morgue. So Kennedy's body had to be secretly removed from the autopsy room after pre-autopsy surgery, and brought back in by the honor guard. This time in the ornate bronze casket. There were actually THREE casket entries, and multiple witnesses to each of them. First, the body was brought in secretly in the shipping casket. Then the EMPTY ornate bronze casket -- which the pallbearers assumed held a body -- was brought in. The body was secretly put in this casket and removed from the morgue. Then, finally, this casket was brought in by the honor guard. After which the autopsy was performed. I think I got that right. The autopsy room was controlled by G-men in suits. The were able to pull this chicanery off by asking the autopsy participants to leave the room temporarily as necessary, at which time they were given some excuse. For example, while x-rays were being taken.
  10. Some of us believe the JCS (generals) instigated the CIA into planning and carrying out the assassination. It was a military coup, in that sense. Some of the generals were reportedly at the autopsy, and it's likely CIA officers were there as well.
  11. According to Ferrie, he (Ferrie) was in Dallas on 11/22/63 investigating the possibility of putting an ice skating rink in New Orleans... right? If so, how could he be in New Orleans with Marcello? Marcello was apparently lying. Maybe that's the reason Garrison didn't take him seriously. I'm inclined to believe what Andrews said early on, Nov. 25, 1963, to the FBI. He said it was Clay Shaw who asked him to represent Oswald.
  12. The problem is, there is not much to be said about the topic of the thread. And so, instead, members talk about politics. That's the problem with contemporary political threads. BTW, the reason I haven't moved the thread is because members have been careful not to say negative things about the opposite party and their politicians. Also, admittedly, I find the comments interesting to read. And -- as we all know -- the comments will stop being posted if the thread is moved to Political Discussions.
  13. I think that a multiparty system would be disastrous. Suppose we had three parties. Isn't it obvious that if two of those parties are similar, they would split their vote, thereby allowing a minority to choose a candidate? That wouldn't be democratic. I find it rather amazing that an individual can agree with almost everything given on a particular party's platform. But that is the case for me, and I'll bet it is for a large majority of people. I'm a Democrat and I agree with almost everything the Democrats have legislated and signed into law. Admittedly, I wince at a few things that Biden has done unilaterally. For example, forgiven student debt for some people. There really should be a program legislated to help students across the board. And raised taxes to pay for it. Having said all that, I'd be in favor of a multiple party system if we had runoff voting. That is, a candidate would need greater than 50% of the vote to win.
  14. Bill, I certainly care, and I think there are others who do as well. I'd like to see a debate on the reason(s) identification disinformation was inserted into Oswald's 201. The reason provided by Jim Hargrove is the one I've always thought to be the case. But I'm open to the possibility of there being mole hunts. However, I need an educated proponent to convince me. I have created a thread for this discussion to take place:
  15. While I am quite familiar with the patsification side of this issue (and superficially aware of the molehunt side), I am no expert and therefore cannot debate this myself. But I am definitely interested in following the topic. Having said that, I do have one comment I wish to make. From what I've seen, it seems to me that the approach taken by the molehunt side was to first accept that Oswald was being used in a molehunt, and then to search for evidence supporting that idea. In contrast, the approach taken by the other, patsification side was to first consider the evidence, and based on that search for a solution explaining it. I generally believe that the latter line of reasoning is superior to the former.
  16. Certain CIA officials filed Oswald's 201 file in Angleton's Special Investigations Group (CI/SIG) office, where the CIA "spied on spies." In addition, CIA officials inserted disinformation into Lee Harvey Oswald's file regarding his identification. For example, the middle name Henry instead of Harvey. Furthermore, cables with this disinformation were sent to various departments of the Federal Government on October 10, 1963. Some researchers believe that the purpose for doing these things was to identify moles inside the CIA. As I understand it, only a mole would relay such information back to Moscow, and he could be identified that way. Other researchers believe that the purpose for doing these things was to lower Oswald's profile so that he would not be identified as a potential threat against President Kennedy during his Dallas visit. And thereby he could be made the Patsy. I'm hoping that proponents of both sides will debate this issue on this thread.
  17. Paul didn't use a pejorative against any particular (contemporary) party or politician, so no forum rule broken. But it's looking like a mod will have to move this thread to Political Discussions
  18. Thanks for posting this important information, Keven. Before you began posting here, I was completely unaware of the logarithmically-scanned Zapruder frames that reveal so well the blacked out area on the back of the head. Forum member @Andrej Stancak did do an analysis on certain frames (317?) that showed that the BOH area was unnaturally dark. But I don't know if his analysis was received well by people who aren't technically inclined. Even before that, I pointed out that the "shadow" on the back of Kennedy's head was darker than the shadow on the back of Jackie's head, which makes no sense because -- as one can see in many photos that day -- her hair was noticeably darker than his.
  19. Okay, thanks Bill. I must say, your line of reasoning is way, way different from mine. But so it is, as forum member Ben Cole would say. Good luck!
  20. Huh? Are you saying that you don't know how it came about that Oswald just happened to get a job where the plotters wanted him to be working so that he could take the blame for the assassination? You do believe that the plotters designated Oswald to be the patsy prior to 11/22, don't you?
  21. I'm gonna have to move this thread to Political Discussions if it isn't tied into the JFKA soon.
  22. @Bill Simpich, how did the plotters get patsy Oswald to work for the TSBD? It seems like that is where they wanted him to be.
×
×
  • Create New...