Sandy Larsen

50 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I guess we are in different pages on this one, and that is fine, that is what the EF-JFKA is for, to see different viewpoints. 

I will say, in the intervening years, many witnesses have corrected what they said were incorrect affidavits and so on.

AKAIK, no one has said, "Actually, I did see LHO when gunshots rang out, and he was on the steps. The FBI did not let me say that before." 

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. We just have different takes on this one. 

The reason you disagree with what has been proven, is because it is inconsistent with you pet theory.

Well, guess what...

Oswald had no gunshot residue on his cheeks. Which proves that he didn't fire a rifle that day.

Your theory, therefore, is kaput.

But you will disagree because -- despite all your calls for everyone to keep an open mind -- you've got one of the most closed minds of anyone on the forum.

But so it goes.

Keep an open mind.

55 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Of course Postal Inspector Holmes lied for the WC. The government conducted a coverup, and people lie and deceive in coverups. I don't know why some researchers can't accept that.

55 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

But then by your logic why did they not lie and say he was coming down from the sixth floor?   I mean in golf if you’re going to lie when you’re in the rough you don’t just tap the ball a little.

If you seriously consider those times the coverup artists fabricated stories when stitching together the official narrative, you come to realize that they tried as much as possible to keep their stories to match real testimony, and even what can be seen on films and photographs.

It is because of that that researchers for a long time believed a lot of these fake stories. Some, like Greg Doudna and Pat Speer, still do.

Here is what the coverup artists did to fabricate the second-floor Baker/Oswald encounter:

The Darnell film shows Officer Baker running to the entrance of the TSBD. Baker's first day statement says that he went up the stairs with Truly, and up a couple of floors they come across a guy and Baker stops him. Truly told Baker that the guy worked there, so Baker let him go. From Oswald they got the story that he went to the second floor lunchroom to get a coke.

Those are all true facts, and the FBI/WC used them to fabricate the false second floor encounter. Which, again, was designed to place Oswald closer to the 6th floor sniper's nest.

Researchers believed the second-floor encounter occurred because film and statements seem to support it. But a decade or so ago, the film and statements came under scrutiny and the whole second floor encounter ultimately fell apart.

Analysis of the Darnell film showed that Officer Baker ran right past the TSBD entrance, not into it.

Baker's first day statement regarding his encounter with some guy on the third or fourth floor is far different from the WC narrative of the Oswald/Baker encounter on the second floor.

And Oswald's story of going to the second floor lunchroom for a coke is far different than the WC's narrative, which has Oswald eating lunch AFTER his encounter with Oswald.

The second-floor Baker/Oswald encounter never occurred.

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

During the shooting, no one recalls seeing LHO. 

Correction: Nobody SAID that they recalled seeing LHO during the shooting. (At least not openly.)

It was a freaking government coverup! Do you really think that the government would have allowed a witness to Oswald's whereabouts testify that they saw Oswald watching the P. Parade during the shooting? Or that he was on the first floor during the shooting? (The former being Oswald's alibi, the latter being the government's cover story for Oswald's alibi.)

Of course the government wouldn't allow that to get out! And they didn't.

It has been proven that the government recruited Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady to lie about WHEN they saw Victoria Adams exit the first-floor stairwell, in order to discredit her story. (Because her story proved that the second floor encounter as told by the WC didn't occur.) It is my belief that the reason those two in particular were recruited to lie is because they were the ones who saw Oswald watching the P. Parade.

The government HAD to make Lovelady and Shelley lie about seeing Oswald out watching the P. Parade. So they figured they might as well have them lie about Victoria Adams too. That is what I believe.

23 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And I doubt Postal Inspector Holmes was the wilful li-ar in his Warren Commission testimony under oath that it is common in some circles to routlnely assume.

Of course Postal Inspector Holmes lied for the WC. The government conducted a coverup, and people lie and deceive in coverups. I don't know why some researchers can't accept that.

23 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Perjury is a serious thing and can land one in prison.

Not when it's a government sanctioned coverup, and those who lie are doing it for national security reasons, at the (indirect) request of President LBJ. It was their patriotic duty to help prevent WW3.

23 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On the eating lunch after getting the coke after the assassination thing which makes no sense, that is a distortion or misunderstanding of what Oswald would have and surely did say. Oswald would have spoken of going up to the second floor to get a coke with his lunch before the assassination, the logical time to go up to get a coke. Then after the assassination he went up to the second floor a second time, this time not to get a coke but to make his way to the rear of the building and down the stairs and out a rear door unobtrusively, but he reversed direction when seeing and encountering Baker. At least that is a possible reconstruction (with credit to Andrej Stancak for the proposal)

Had the second floor Oswald/Baker encounter happened, Baker would have made a note of it on his first-day statement.

There is too much evidence against the second floor encounter to take it seriously. (Victoria Adams is just the beginning of that.)

It was obviously created in order to place Oswald sufficiently away from his alibied location so that he conceivably could have been on the sixth floor during the shooting.

10 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Jesse can't spell his own name right.

LOL, another good one!

It's good to have Ron back with his one-liners.

11 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

15 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

That's unfortunate, as Jesse Watters is a giant stain on what passes for "news" on that joke of a network.

He has nice things to say about you.

LOL

I liked your joke. But really, Fox News lies all the time. MSNBC is obviously partisan, but they don't lie much.

I'm really surprised you don't know this.

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Sandy,

Why do you think Hosty's rough notes are more believable (and spot-on accurate) than Kelley's final report? Please explain that to me.

Because when you want to cover something up, you make the lie nice and clean so there can be no mistake. For example, by using a typewriter.

Now think about this: Your side believes that Hosty lied, and my side believes that Kelley lied. I can give you a motive for Kelley to lie, but you CAN'T give me a motive for Hosty to lie.

That's because Kelley did lie -- to patsify Oswald -- but Hosty didn't.

"O. stated he was present for work at TBD on the morning of 11/22 and at noon went to lunch. He went to 2nd floor to get Coca Cola to eat with lunch and returned to 1st floor to eat lunch. Then went outside to watch P.  Parade."

James Hosty

The truth's a bitch, ain't  it Dave?

44 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But even if Oswald had said he ate lunch before the assassination occurred, that too would have been a lie, of course, because LHO didn't eat lunch at all on 11/22. He was much too busy upstairs on the sixth floor.

There is no evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor during the shooting.

There is no evidence that Oswald shot a rifle that day.

I don't know what it is you have against Oswald and why you make these lies up about him.

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Your response, that the journalists who debunked Russiagate, did so because they were duped by "Trump friendly fake news sites", rather than as a result of their journalistic work, is no answer at all.   It's a way of avoiding confronting the substance of what they said.

As I said, I am no expert on this. And I have no intention of becoming one. Because of that I cannot confront what your journalists say.

But there's no doubt in my mind that Putin's guys are doing whatever they can think of to get Trump elected, given that is in Putin's best interests. Also given that Trump just adores Putin and has had many business deals in Russia.

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

You "suspect", huh.  You obviously don't know that to be true...

Yes, that is correct.

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

You're confused.  All of the journalists that Keven and I have referred to are on the left.

Those on the left can and do get information from those on the right, and vice versa.

Nevertheless, after what I just learned from William, I think it is more likely that the journalists you named get their news from left-wing Putin-friendly fake news sites.

This is what I suspect. I don't know it to be true.

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Sandy, I'm beginning to think that your belief system--whether you favor or believe something--is based on whether that thing helps or hurts Trump.  Not whether it is true or not.

Not so. It just seems that way because Trump is so corrupt. Things that hurt him are due to his own actions... nobody needs to make bad things up about Trump.

46 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of propaganda Russia would try to put on a left-wing news site. Naturally those sites would be anti-Trump (and anti-Biden if it is far-left). But Russia wants Trump to win, which contradicts the goal of those sites.

46 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

As for your question, two main areas where left-leaning news sites have pushed Kremlin propaganda are;

1)  the denial of Russia-gate, ( i.e., Trump's involvement with Russia, and Putin's strategic interference in the 2016 U.S. election) and

2) blaming the U.S. and NATO for Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine, while denying or ignoring Putin's war crimes.

Oh, of course... I get it now.

While it is true that Putin wants Trump to win (for obvious reasons), and so will spread propaganda for that aim, they don't want to be called out for doing so.

So, while on right-wing news site Russia's propaganda is designed to get Trump elected, on left-wing news sites Russia's propaganda is designed to hide the fact that they are doing that.

On 3/17/2024 at 6:37 PM, Bill Simpich said:

...the CIA officers went to great pains to omit from their memos [cables]  any reference to any Oswald visit to the Cuban consulate, any reference to Oswald’s membership in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and any reference to his attempts to get a visa

Here is the reason for that:

The CIA's reason for sending the October 10, 1963 cables was primarily to fulfill their responsibility of reporting Americans making contact with Soviet agencies. There was only one incident among the surveilled telephone calls where the Oswald name was used, and that was the one where an Oswald imposter called the Soviet Embassy.  He used the name "Lee Oswald," and that was the name reported to the various government agencies.

The CIA used fake information in order to obfuscate the Soviet Embassy incident. They certainly weren't going to include details that might raise red flags. There was no need to include the Cuban Consulate visits, the FPCC incidents, or anything else that might get peoples' attention. So they didn't.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, of course THAT portion of Oswald's statement (about eating lunch after the shooting) is, indeed, nonsense. It's just one of the many lies LHO told after his arrest.

Oh right Dave... Oswald just had to get that lie in about eating lunch AFTER having Baker draw his gun on him. Heaven forbid the truth got out that he ate lunch first! LOL

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

So you think that Hosty was mistaken?

Well okay, I think that Fritz and Bookhout were mistaken.

In all my investigating of the JFK  assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald comes across as one of the most honest characters.

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

No, I don't think Hosty lied at all. But I also don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Oswald. Based on all of the official final reports (from Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, and Kelley), I think the words "P. Parade" that appear in the "new" Hosty note were probably HOSTY'S words and HOSTY'S interpretation of Oswald's "out with Bill Shelley" statement. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more reports (and notes) that had the word "Parade" in them.

So you think that Hosty was mistaken?

Well okay, I think that Fritz and Bookhout were mistaken.

20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And you surely are aware that Oswald himself confirmed the fact that his encounter with a policeman after the assassination occurred on the 2nd floor and in the lunchroom. Both Captain Fritz and FBI agent James Bookhout wrote in their respective reports that Oswald had confirmed the location of the encounter.

According to FBI agent Bookhout, Oswald said that Officer Baker held a gun on him in the second floor lunchroom when he went there to buy a coke for lunch. And afterward he went down to the first floor and ate lunch in the employees lunchroom.

Hmm... Oswald ate lunch after the shooting? If you want to believe that David, that your prerogative. But the rest of us know it's nonsense.

That's what happens to a perfectly cohesive story when one later adds a fabrication. In this case, the second floor encounter.

20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So that means, according to the members of the increasingly popular "Second-Floor Encounter Never Happened" club, that either Oswald was himself lying about the 2nd-floor encounter or that Fritz and Bookhout were lying in their reports.

Or someone altered the report after it was written.

20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I think you, Sandy, have chosen to believe the latter option, which adds 2 more people to your L-i-a-r-s List. Correct?

 I don't know if they lied or if the interrogation reports were later altered. Makes no difference to me. It was a coverup and people lie in coverups.

BTW, I apparently need to point out to you that you yourself are claiming that FBI agent James Hosty lied. Even though there was no motive for him to do so.

At least in my case -- what I believe -- there indeed was a motive to lie.

28 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

The World Socialist Web Site, Global Research, and Consortium News.

I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of propaganda Russia would try to put on a left-wing news site. Naturally those sites would be anti-Trump (and anti-Biden if it is far-left). But Russia wants Trump to win, which contradicts the goal of those sites.

9 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

I actually think Roy Truly and Marrion Baker saw Oswald (who said he was a patsy) on the second floor TSBD.

Wow... incredible.

Are you aware that James Hosty wrote in his interrogation notes that Oswald said he was outside watching the presidential parade? Do you think Oswald was lying?

Given the fact that the government covered up Oswald's alibi (Hosty's note), among numerous other things, doesn't it make more sense that the government is the one who lied, by fabricating the second-floor encounter?

By now it should be universally accepted that the second-floor encounter didn't occur. There are just too many problems with it.

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

What many Americans still don't know is that Russian propagandists have also been actively involved in some left-wing (non-MAGA) media outlets.

Can you give some examples?

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I suspect that the commentators you rely upon get their information from, and have been duped by, Trump-friendly fake news sites.

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

You're simply repeating, again, what you already said.

Okay, then you know my answer.

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

The journalists Keven named, and others like them, each reached their own conclusions about Russiagate based on actual work they did. 

And, I suspect, based on fake information they got from Trump-friendly alternative news sites.

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I can assure none of them supports Trump, not that that matters.

They support the radical right. Trump benefits from that.

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Maybe if you named these Trump friendly sites you claim were these journalists' sources, the falseness of the claim can be seen more clearly. 

Trump-friendly fake news site are pervasive on the internet. I don't know which ones those "journalists" read.

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

I'll ask again.  What "Trump friendly fake news sites" are you talking about, that you imagine I have been duped by?

I suspect that the commentators you rely upon get their information from, and have been duped by, Trump-friendly fake news sites.

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Sandy:  And as I pointed out, Craig Murray may have been fooled by a Russian agent who falsely placed blame on a disgruntled DNC employee in order to deflect suspicion from himself and the Russians.

RO;  What are you talking about?

Roger,

You are aware, aren't you, that Craig Murray claims that he received the leaked DNC e-mails from the leaker himself? And that the leaker was a disgruntled DNC employee?

So that's how Murray knows that the e-mails weren't hacked by Russians.

So what I was saying to you is that, even if Murray is telling the truth, it could be that the guy he got the e-mails from wasn't really a DNC employee. Maybe he was a Russian Agent claiming to be a DNC employee. And that he told Murray he was a DNC employee just to exonerate the Russians.

Murray admitted that he didn't know who the so-called "DNC employee" was.

4 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

A number of us have made the case that the phrase "Lee Henry Oswald" was bait for the molehunt.   Egerter had named Oswald's 201 file "Lee Henry Oswald" when she created the file in December 1960.  That was no accident.

I agree that it was no accident for Egerter to name Oswald's 201 file "Lee Henry Oswald" in December 1960, which is when it was first filed in Angleton's CI-SIG office.

I, like John Armstrong, believe that the Oswald Project was so sensitive that details of it were held only in memory. When Otto Otepka of the State Department requested in October 1960 that the CIA identify which of the American defectors to the Soviet Union were double agents, this prompted Egerter into opening the Lee Henry Oswald 201 file. The middle name "Henry" was used due to the sensitive nature of the file.

3 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

If you wanted to look at two people who certainly lowered the spotlight on Oswald and may have kept him off the Security Index - which might have put the spotlight on Oswald on Nov. 22 - Gheesling and Anderson would be your men.

Yes, Marvin Gheesling issued an FBI "security flash" on Oswald in 1959, and Lambert Anderson removed it with a "flash cancelled" on October 9, 1963.

The CIA sent their two cables the following day, October 10, 1963.

So my argument is that an element of the FBI took Oswald off of it's watch list on October 9, 1963. And an element of the CIA did effectively the same thing the following day, by issuing the misleading cable to the various government agencies. Both of which were done so that Oswald could get a job at a high-rise building along a presidential motorcade route without having any red flags raised.

1 hour ago, Bill Simpich said:

I do question why [Sandy] refused to read my book State Secret while he critiques it?

I quit reading State Secret when I got to the part where you wrote something to the effect that Oswald was a CIA-wannabe. I knew there was no further reason for me to read your theory because it would be completely at odds with mine.

My theory is that Oswald was a CIA agent and false defector to the Soviet Union. And that he'd been used by the CIA to implicate Cuba and Russia in the assassination of Kennedy.

As for my "critiquing" State Secret, I've said only that I disagree with its premise, and that I disagree with you as to the reason the October 10 cables were worded the way they were. I don't see that I have to read the whole book to know I disagree with those things.

But, as I said, I am no expert on the "mole hunt" angle espoused by you and John Newman. One reason I created this thread is so I could learn more.

Though it appears that you are the only active forum member who is an expert on this topic. So I'm left debating the other side even though I'm no expert.

1 hour ago, Bill Simpich said:

CI-SIG was described by Egerter as "the office that spied on spies". 

Yes, and Oswald's 201 file was in CI-SIG. Which is evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a spy.

1 hour ago, Bill Simpich said:

Molehunts were CI-SIG's specialty.  

While that is true, that doesn't necessarily mean that Oswald was being used in a molehunt. Perhaps Oswald was suspected of being a mole.

I happen to believe that Oswald's 201 file was in Angleton's CI-SIG office because he was a part of a special Angleton project, known to us as the Oswald Project.

1 hour ago, Bill Simpich said:

Sandy didn't mention that Bustos' other 10/10/63 cable described him as "Lee Oswald", not "Lee Henry Oswald".  There's a reason why - molehunts are designed to see who takes the bait and uses it in another post.  Many times, a clerk is the culprit.  But it could be an agency official.   In either instance, the molehunter finds out the identity of the leaker.

I don't now what you mean, that I didn't mention a cable that described the man as "Lee Oswald," not "Lee Henry Oswald."

Here is what I said about the two cables, each of which talk about both "Lee Oswald" and "Lee Henry Oswald:"

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.

1 hour ago, Bill Simpich said:

I do not think these two memos of 10/10/63 were written to "patsify" Lee Oswald as the shooter of JFK.

As a reminder, in the title of the thread I use the phrase "Oswald Patsification" as a short way of saying this: "A way to keep Oswald's profile low so that he could get a job in a high-rise building along the route of a presidential motorcade." And in that way he could perform the role of patsy.

1 hour ago, Bill Simpich said:

If you think about it, Sandy didn't offer any evidence.  Evidence of a molehunt and a cover-up is what I am offering here.

I did so give the evidence... the three cables, the latter two being dated October 10, 1963. I just happen to interpret the reasoning behind their disinformation differently than you do.