Sandy Larsen

Europe and America should create a Palestinian State and a Marshall Plan for quickly building it. Leave Gaza as-is for a Holocaust-like museum reminding everybody what Hamas and militant Israelis did to the Palestinian people.

Call it what you want Roger. But most people call the evidence that the WC created against Oswald phrases like "faked evidence, "forged evidence," etc. Because I disagree with you. I don't believe Johnson was an essential participant. Yes, I read it. And I criticized it and showed you how it falls apart under scrutiny. What unsupported claims? Almost everything I've said are either known facts, or are theories believed by a lot of people, including Jim D.

Thanks Jim!

Joe, The Generals and CIA were the perpetrators of the assassination. They designed it to looked like Cuba and Russia were behind it. The General didn't report that the Cubans/Russian were behind the assassination because they are not an investigative body. J. Edgar Hoover did indeed discover the evidence that the Cubans/Russians were behind the assassination. The faked evidence, that is. But he didn't know it was faked. At least not until much later.

Oh I don't know, Roger. Maybe whatever it was that got the whole police force out to arrest Oswald... which they did at Texas Theater. I didn't say it was valid evidence. Say what? LBJ was hoping for a death bed confession from Oswald. Why would he have hoped for that if he knew Oswald was innocent? Of course LBJ and Hoover thought Oswald was guilty. That IS the easy choice! I'll let J. Edgar Hoover tell you. Here is what he said to LBJ over the phone regarding the evidence implicating Cuba: "This angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble because the story there is of this man Oswald getting $6,500 from the Cuban embassy and then coming back to this country with it. We're not able to prove that fact, but the information was that he was there on the 18th of September in Mexico City and we are able to prove conclusively he was in New Orleans that day. Now then they've changed the dates. The story came in changing the dates to the 28th of September and he was in Mexico City on the 28th. Now the Mexican police have again arrested this woman Duran, who is a member of the Cuban embassy... and we're going to confront her with the original informant, who saw the money pass, so he says, and we're also going to put the lie detector test on him." Oswald reportedly had been paid $6500 for the hit in the Cuban Consulate. And was paling around with Silvia Duran and some Cuban officials while in Mexico City. (This according Elena Garro, June Cobb, and Gilberto Alvarado.) And then there was the evidence that Oswald met with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy. And the letter Oswald supposedly sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC saying that he had conducted his business with Comrade Kostin (i.e. Kostikov).

It makes no sense whatsoever for the CIA to do anything at all in creating a false flag operation, knowing that LBJ was opposed to it. Sorry, but your theory falls apart right there. You need to adjust it to account for what the CIA plotters did. But we know that both the JCS and the CIA were willing to take the risk of attacking Cuba. We know that because that's precisely what they did! With the Bay of Pigs! My theory has these exact same actors assassinating Kennedy. They still wanted to attack Cuba! According to the Burris Memorandum, Allen Dulles told Kennedy that December 1963 would be the ideal time for America to win the war. You can read about it here: https://prospect.org/world/u.s.-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963/ Harriman said he had consulted with the top Sovietologists and it was a consensus opinion that the Soviets were not involved, and he reported that to LBJ while he was still aboard Air Force One flying back to Washington. Now why would Harriman do such a thing if he weren't trying to steer LBJ away from the commie angle? BTW, Harriman lied... he had not consulted the Sovietologists, other than himself. (Recall that he had been Ambassador to the Soviet Union.) Precisely! The same faction that perpetrated the assassination! The same faction that proved with the Bay of Pigs that they were willing to risk war with Russia as a result of attacking Cuba!

I just read this Bill Simpich document: https://aarclibrary.org/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-10-nightmare-in-mexico-city/ It verifies that Boris Tarasoff did indeed recognize the broken Russian caller's voice to be the same in both the Sept. 28 and Oct. 1 calls. In the Sept. 28 call, from the?Cuban Consulate to the Soviet Embassy, Duran hands the phone to Oswald and he speaks but doesn't give his name. In the Oct. 1 call, to the Soviet Embassy, Oswald makes the call himself and this time he does leave his name. In this call he says that he had been to the Soviet Embassy earlier. So the second call tells Boris right away that Lee Oswald had been to the Soviet Embassy. The voice is the same as that in the first call, which came from the Cuban Consulate. So Boris deduces that Lee Oswald had been to the Cuban Consulate as well! BUT HERE'S THE RUB... The first call, on Sept. 28 -- the one initiated by Duran and handed over to Oswald -- could not have really been made from the Cuban Consulate because that was a Saturday and the consulate was closed on Saturday! In addition, Duran said that she did not make that call! (I believe she said she never even saw Oswald after Friday the 27th.) So apparently that call was made by a woman who wasn't Duran, and it was made from a location that wasn't the Cuban Consulate! So where does that leave us? In a sense, we are back to where we started... there being no credible evidence in the phone calls indicating that Oswald had been to the Cuban Consulate. On the other hand, as far as the telephone intercept teams knew, Oswald had indeed been to both the Soviet Embassy AND the Cuban consulate! Therefore, I believe we have to conclude that the CIA's Mexican Desk did indeed keep to themselves the information that Oswald had been to the Cuban Consulate. And that is egg on my face.

Very early on there was evidence pointing to Oswald as the perp. There was also evidence pointing to Cuba and Russia (as well as Oswald) as the perps. Johnson didn't want anything to do with the conspiracy angle that would lead to international consequences... like war. After all, Hoover said that the evidence for the conspiracy was far from solid. So Johnson did the easy thing and chose to accept the lone gunman evidence. Later he would discover that the lone gunman solution wasn't so great after all... because it wasn't correct. Which meant that the FBI and WC had to lie there heads off to make it all work out.

Oops, I should have read more carefully. You do see the problem. Well, then, my prior post is for other people reading the thread.

Okay, but that doesn't tell us anything relevant to the topic of this thread. Because it is dated after the assassination. On October 9, the clandestine telephone intercept teams reported that Lee Oswald had visited the Russian Embassy at the end of September. But they didn't say a word about him visiting the Cuban Consulate. The question is, why? The answer is because the person talking on the phone only used the name Oswald in one call. And that was a a call to the Soviet Embassy. In the call, "Oswald" said that he had been to the Soviet Embassy earlier. That's how the telephone intercept team knew that Oswald had been to the Soviet Embassy. But there was no way of knowing he had also been to the Cuban Consulate.

Makes sense to me. Use the mole to send disinformation.

Spying for the Soviets? That's odd. I think he was spying ON the Soviets when he was living there. I think Oswald was working for the CIA. And that's how the plotters were able to get him working in the right building at the right time to perform his unwitting duty as patsy.

I think that all this mole stuff regarding Oswald is manufactured.

You are right. The name Lee Oswald was mentioned in just one telephone call. So the embassy/consulate surveillance crews were aware of only what was said in that one call. And what he said was that he had been to the Soviet Embassy earlier and had spoken to someone there. The person making that call did not say a thing about the Cuban Consulate. Therefore, the only thing the telephone surveillance crews knew was that "Oswald" had been to the Soviet Embassy.

My guess would be Allen Dulles, James Angleton, Edward Lansdale, and David Phillips at a lower level. If you read about the Burris Memorandum, you'll see how the JCS would present an "annual" assessment of nuclear war with Russia. Allen Dulles told Kennedy that December 1963 would be the ideal time for America to win the war. You can read about it here: https://prospect.org/world/u.s.-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963/ I don't know specifically which of the JCS were involved in the plot. No matter how you cut it, the CIA had to have been the plotters. How else can you explain the false flag operation to blame the Cubans/Russians? Nobody but the CIA could have done that. How else do you explain getting Oswald into the right building at the right time to perform his duty as unwitting patsy? Oswald must have been controlled by the CIA, and the TSBD must have been a front company. There's just no way around it.

LOL (My apologies if this has already been posted.)

The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets. It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one. To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted. Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory). Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence. But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.)

I am all for anti-war protests on campus. (And off campus.) But I have a suspicion that the police were called in because some of the protesters are disrupting normal campus functioning. A little like the Golden Gate Bridge being shut down due to protests there last week.

I predict that the new lettering system for generations -- Greek -- won't make it past Generation Beta. (Generation Gamma, anybody?) Americans aren't into foreign alphabets... with the exception of scientists, physicists, and engineers. I'll bet that after Generation Beta, Generation C will be used. And alternate names Generations A and B will be used for Generations Alpha and Beta.

I've always had a low opinion of Giuliani, even prior to 9/11. But it's only in the last several years that I've realized he's an idiot.

@Bill Simpich, Tommy Graves said that he miswrote something in this. Where he wrote: "...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the Warren Commission..." he meant to write: "...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the HSCA..." The changed word is in bold (mine). I will correct the original.

The "solid scientific evidence of a tangential wound" that Pat posted has nothing to do with Kennedy. It's somebody else's wound. Keven has presented Robinson's ARRB testimony explaining what that triangular piece is, at least the part of it above the ear, as indicated in his drawing below. Though apparently he recalled its locationto be a couple centimeters nearer the ear than its actual location. He said that it was a flap of skin. As well as the location of a 1/4 inch wound. Neither Keven nor I have commented on what the beliefs of any authors are. Only Pat has done that. To which I've warned readers not to believe what Pat says about other researchers because of his history of misrepresenting the evidence and what the researchers believe. Keven went one step further and proved that what Pat said were misrepresentations. No big surprise for me. That was Dr. Paul Peters' judgment after carefully observing the autopsy photographs. Why do you consider a medical doctor to be "utterly unqualified?" (See the video in the OP.) Oh, I know. Because his opinion contradicts your preconceived notions. You have already admitted to being a closed-minded ideologue regarding the authenticity of the photos, films, and x-rays. So why not regarding this incision (as described by Dr. Peters) as well?

Apparently Pat thinks that it is Horne himself relaying the above lines.

What is a Kent?

It's bizarro only in your mind, Pat. If Horne told the story, it would make perfect sense.