Sandy Larsen
-
Posts
9,226 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Sandy Larsen
-
-
20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
Tell us, Sandy: Why are you so convinced Roy S. Truly was a l-i-a-r and a CIA operative? What possible (good) reason could anyone have for treating Mr. Truly like a criminal?
It's all very simple:
- Most of us accept the Oswald was a pre-ordained patsy. (There are many good reasons to believe that... they are outside the scope of this post.)
- It was necessary for Oswald to take a job at the TSBD in order for him to (unwittingly) play the roll of patsy.
- In order to accomplish that, the perpetrators of the assassination necessarily had to have control over A) Oswald's actions, B ) Ruth Paine's actions, C) the actions of either Roy Truly or someone who could somehow control him.
Of all the possible suspects there were for the perpetrators (CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, Mafia, right-wing extremists, Castro, etc.), who could possibly have had control over Oswald, Ruth Paine, and Roy Truly?
The only reasonable answer is the CIA.
Therefore the CIA was controlling Oswald, Ruth Paine, and Truly. Truly might have been controlled indirectly.
Note that I never said anything about Truly (or anybody else) being a criminal.
But whenever a coverup occurs, people do illegal things. Coverups are illegal. I don't know if Truly was a witting part of the coverup.
-
18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
The video above defies explanation---unless some Capitol Police officers were part of a plan to admit Mr Buffalo Horns to the Senate chambers.
The policemen walking around with Chansley would check doors for him to see if the were locked. If unlocked, they would let him enter the room.
What they were really doing was making him think they were on his side. They weren't. Had a door led to some important area, the police would inform Chansley that the door was locked, regardless of whether it was or not.
There's your explanation, Ben.
Of course, I know you will reject this highly plausible explanation so that you can continue to believe that the insurrectionists were incited by deep state boogeymen who are out to get Trump.
-
19 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Marrion Baker did, of course, mention his encounter with Lee Oswald in his first-day affidavit. He merely got the floor number wrong.
Marrion Baker's account of the guy on the third or fourth floor doesn't at all match the supposed encounter he had with Oswald.
Wrong floor: Third or fourth vs. second floor.
Wrong physical description: 165 lb vs. 140 lb.
Wrong location: In the hallway vs. in the lunchroom.
Wrong description of event: Suspect is standing, drinking a coke vs. walking away.
How could Baker possibly have mistaken "I entered the vestibule and saw a man drinking a coke in the lunchroom" for "I saw a man in the hallway walking away from me; I called and he came back?"
This is what got me started searching for the truth. I ultimately found that all the evidence pointed to the second-floor encounter having never occurred. I also found that the evidence indicated Oswald's alibi was that he was outside with Bill Shelley during the motorcade. And from those two findings I postulated that the second-floor encounter was fabricated to bring Oswald further away from his alibi, the front steps... in order to cover up the alibi.
The official narrative is that Oswald's alibi was that he was INSIDE on the first floor during the shooting. The WC couldn't let Oswald's real alibi be known because otherwise critics would scrutinize photos and film, looking for Oswald outside.
That was my own investigation on this topic, and it backs up what Bart Kamp found in his investigation. Later, Bart discovered the Hosty note, which proved us right about Oswald's alibi of being outside watching the "P. Parade."
-
17 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:
What is your proof there was no Oswald/Marion Baker encounter on the second floor? What is the best essay on this topic?
Here's a very simple proof...
Suppose there was indeed an Oswald/Baker second floor encounter.
Then why didn't Officer Baker mention it in his first-day affidavit? Even though he knew Oswald was being charged with the murder?
The reason Baker didn't mention it is because it never happened.
End of proof.
There are numerous other reasons to believe the encounter never happened. The most exhaustive study is the one by Bart Kamp, written up as "Anatomy of the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter." It is here.
-
2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
Why thank you, Sandy. It sounds like you think there's a chance of my getting into heaven.
LOL, yep!
-
Oh my lord Pat, you're going to go to the grave believing there was an Oswald/Baker encounter on the the second floor. I hope Saint Peter doesn't waste his time trying to convince you otherwise.
-
14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
So Capital Police themselves aided an "insurrectionist" to gain entry to the Senate chambers, and possibly the gallery. This is on video, this is not debatable.
I recall watching one person's video of a Capitol policeman backing away from the onslaught of rioters, inside the Capitol building. He would try to block one hallway and try to get the rioters to go down another.
A person watching the video was familiar with the Capitol, and noted that the policeman was using reverse psychology. The hallways he tried to get the rioters to take were actually the ones he DIDN'T want them to take, and vice versa. The rioters were fooled and went down the wrong hallways.
-
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:
Have you read Craig Murray's article on the Mueller investigation that Keven posted, as I suggested? Is this your response? If so, can you address the specific points Murray made, particularly the ones I highlighted?
Roger,
I haven't the energy, time, or inclination to become an expert on Russiagate. My ideas regarding it are based on years of personal observation of the actions of the various actors.
I do have an open mind regarding it, but I am willing only to study individual claims to see if they can be verified.
A great example of this is when Keven made the claim that the FBI admitted that Seth Rich was directly involved in the DNC e-mail leak. (In this post.) He gave me his source and I spent several hours researching it. Ultimately I discovered it to be only a half-truth. Yes, the FBI did admit to having Rich's laptop, and indirectly admitted to having investigated it as part of the their DNC leak investigation. But alas, no... the FBI did not admit that Seth Rich was involved in the leak, or that they thought he was involved.
This is also a great example of why I don't trust the judgement of most people.
So why should I trust what Craig Murray said? He is a close friend of Assange's, and could easily have been giving him a hand in deflecting Russian involvement allegations from WikiLeaks.
Or, maybe Murray is telling the truth, but was duped by a Russian agent into believing that the e-mails were hacked by a disgruntled DNC employee. (I happen to believe this is likely the case.)
So, bottom line is this: If you or anyone want's to convince me of something, make it something simple and give me a source so I can verify it for myself.
As I said, my mind is open, But I think you guys have probably been hoodwinked by Trump-friendly fake news sites... OR by commentators who have been hoodwinked by those sites.
(I've noticed that Ben Cole, who is not a Trump supporter, thinks and speaks just like a Trump supporter. And I believe that he does so because he gets his news and commentaries from Trump-friendly fake news sites.)
One other thing I'd like to say for whoever it was that disparaged Rachel Maddow... I believe that Rachel Maddow is very credible and is fair in her evaluations.
-
46 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:
And, incidentally, the only reason that Mueller didn't indict Trump for multiple counts of obstruction justice was that DOJ guidelines did not permit him to indict a sitting POTUS.
Hey William,
I'm still a believer in the Mueller Report.
But there is one thing the other side is right about, and I thought you should know.
I don't know if you followed what I discovered this morning about the Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation FOIA lawsuit. That is that the FBI did indeed confiscate Seth Rich's laptop. Not only that, indications are that they investigated it to see if Rich was involved in the 2016 DNC server hack.
So they've got that going for them.
But I don't think the FBI concluded that Rich is guilty. Because in the very same legal document where the FBI gives out this information, they also say that 12 Russians have been indicted for the election interference, and they don't want information about Seth Rich's laptop to get out and potentially hurt the case against the Russians.
If you want to read that legal document, go to this post. Read Document 83 Attachment 1, which I've quoted at the very bottom of the post.
-
I think I have some good news for you guys... something that maybe you haven't thought of.
Presidents are not required to get security clearances, and yet they have access to some of the most highly sensitive classified documents. Have you ever wondered how the intelligence agencies deal with that?
I did, a long time ago when I had to have background checks and take other steps to get clearances. My best friend and I came to the conclusion that, if a candidate for president wasn't fit for a security clearances, the intelligence agencies (probably just the CIA) would take measures into their own hands and make damn sure that any unfit presidential candidate who had a chance of winning, wouldn't.
As of now, Donald Trump would be a national security risk if he became president. He's deeply in debt and nobody is willing to loan him the half billion he owes New York City.
Nobody who is deeply in debt qualifies for a security clearance... at least not a Top Secret one. For the simple reason they will be tempted to sell secrets.
In Trumps case, would anyone here be surprised to learn that Vladimir Putin would like to slip[Trump a half billion dollars? Yeah baby! That would be one hell of an investment. Even if Trump were too cautious to sell Putin secrets, nobody could say for sure that his pulling American funds from Ukraine was a Russian quid pro quo. Trump's been wanting America out of Ukraine for some time now.
I don't care much for the CIA's dirty tricks. But in this case I'll hold my nose.
-
2 hours ago, Michael Crane said:
"Ignore the infantile goofballs"
"Goofball" is what I call the a child who is misbehaving.
"Infantile" is what I call an adult who is behaving like a child.
When Robert Montenegro created his The Men Who Murdered President Kennedy thread, with his long list of perpetrators, a number of members poked fun at him for his list. He left because no one took him seriously. One person posted a particularly childish message. I felt like Robert had cast his pearls before swine.
Luckily he came back and reposted his list... on a new thread.
It was at that time that I wrote, "Robert, ignore the infantile goofballs." And I would say it again under the same circumstances.
-
17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I think I've found the answer as to what gave plaintiff Huddleston the idea that the FBI admitted Seth Rich is directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016.
It is in Document 83 (filed 12/9/22), Attachment 1. The FBI makes 36 numbered declarations in that document. The pertinent ones are #27 through #29, where the FBI gives reasons that certain information should not be released.
Declarations #27 through #29 are quoted below. In short, they state that there are currently 12 Russians indicted for interfering with the 2016 election. And if the FBI were to release information related to the 2016 election interference investigation, it could be used to interfere with the investigation and the prosecution of those who are indicted.
So apparently plaintiff Huddleston figured that, if the FBI is concerned about that in his lawsuit, then Seth Rich MUST be directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016.
IMO it is quite a stretch for plaintiff Huddleston to figure, from what the FBI stated, that they were admitting that Seth Rich is directly linked to the 'hack' of the Democratic National Committee email servers in 2016."
To me, what it sounds like is that the FBI admitted they had investigated Seth Rich's laptop computer to see if he was involved. Which is a far cry from saying that they'd determined that Rich was guilty.
Remember, in that court document itself the FBI were saying that the Russians were guilty.
-
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Document 92 (1/13/23):
"After years of denials, the FBI has finally admitted that Seth Rich is directly linked to the 'hack' of the Democratic National Committee email servers in 2016."
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:The most interesting is the quote from Document 92. It's really hard to believe that the FBI admitted that Seth Rich is directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016.
The pertinent question is, how did plaintiff Huddleston get that idea? What were the FBI's actual words?
I think I've found the answer as to what gave plaintiff Huddleston the idea that the FBI admitted Seth Rich is directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016.
It is in Document 83 (filed 12/9/22), Attachment 1. The FBI makes 36 numbered declarations in that document. The pertinent ones are #27 through #29, where the FBI gives reasons that certain information should not be released.
Declarations #27 through #29 are quoted below. In short, they state that there are currently 12 Russians indicted for interfering with the 2016 election. And if the FBI were to release information related to the 2016 election interference investigation, it could be used to interfere with the investigation and the prosecution of those who are indicted.
So apparently plaintiff Huddleston figured that, if the FBI is concerned about that in his lawsuit, then Seth Rich MUST be directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016.
QuoteDocument 83 Attachment 1
BACKGROUND ABOUT THE PENDING ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING
27. In or around 2016, the Russian Federation (Russia) operated a military intelligence agency now called the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, then known as the Main Intelligence Directorate, and still commonly known by its abbreviation GRU, the Russian abbreviation of “Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravlenie,” that in short, is the foreign military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. The GRU had multiple units, including Units 26165 and 74455, engaged in cyber operations that involved the staged releases of documents stolen through computer intrusions. These units conducted large scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
28. On July 13, 2018, a Grand Jury for the District of Columbia in United States of America v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, et al., Criminal No. 1:18-cr-00215, returned an indictment against 1) Viktor Borisovich Netyksho, 2) Boris Alekseyevich Antonov, 3) Dmitriy Sergeyevich Badin, 4) Ivan Sergeyevich Yermakov, 5) Aleksey Viktorovich Lukashev, 6) Sergey Aleksandrovich Morgachev, 7) Nikolay Yuryevich Kozachek, 8 ) Pavel Vyacheslavovich Yershov, 9) Artem Andreyevich Malyshev, 10) Aleksandr Vladimirovich Osadhuk, 11) Aleksey
Aleksandrovich Potemkin, and 12) Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev, charging them with one or more of the following:a. 18U.S.C. §§ 371 and 3559(g)(1) Conspiracy to Commit an Offense or defraud the United States;
b. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and (2) Aggravated Identity Theft; and
c. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) Conspiracy to Launder Money.
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF INTERFERENCE
29. Release of any of the information concerning this investigation, to include the letter from a third-party, two (2) FD-1004 FBI Evidence Chain of Custody Forms and the Report, would be premature because the defendants are fugitives; therefore, the release of such information would trigger a multitude of harms:
a. Suspects and persons of interest would know investigative details that would either alert them to efforts directed towards them and/or would allow them to analyze pertinent information about the investigation. As a result, these individuals would acquire the unique advantage of knowing certain details about or related to them which could be used to their advantage to escape prosecution and thwart current investigative efforts by altering or counteracting evidence, changing behavior, intimidating or physically harming witnesses or law enforcement officials, and/or flight.
b. Once information is released into the public domain, its use and dissemination by third parties are unrestricted. As such, release of these investigative details would allow third parties who are not directly related to this matter to interfere with investigative efforts or any future prosecution(s) through harassment, intimidation, and creation of false evidence by dispensing extraneous facts discussed in the investigation. Given that individuals involved in cyber operations rarely work alone, the threat posed by such harassment and intimidation is real.
c. The release of the withheld investigative details could lead to the identification of sources of information, witnesses, potential witnesses, law enforcement personnel, and individuals otherwise associated with the investigation who could be targeted for intimidation and/or physical harm.
-
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Here are are all the lawsuit documents filed for the Seth Rich case, Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211651/huddleston-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/
Following are the various admissions made by the FBI, according to plaintiff Huddleston:
Document 18 (1/20/21):
"First the FBI played dumb, claiming that no records existed. After getting backed into a corner, the FBI was forced to admit that the records exist, but now it asks the Court to string out production past the 2022 Congressional elections and possibly past the next Presidential election."
Document 26 (6/14/21):
"The FBI recently admitted to this Court that it has thousands of responsive pages and, as set forth below, the FBI has now admitted that it was already in possession of at least some of those documents at the very time that it claimed it was unable to locate any responsive documents."
Document 46 (2/7/22):
"As a result of this litigation, and despite previous testimony that it had no records whatsoever about Seth Rich, the FBI has been forced to admit that it possessed hundreds of pages of documents pertaining to Seth Rich, as well as laptop computers that belonged to Mr. Rich."
Document 92 (1/13/23):"After years of denials, the FBI has finally admitted that Seth Rich is directly linked to the 'hack' of the Democratic National Committee email servers in 2016."
The most interesting is the quote from Document 92. It's really hard to believe that the FBI admitted that Seth Rich is directly linked to the "hack" of the DNC email servers in 2016.
The pertinent question is, how did plaintiff Huddleston get that idea? What were the FBI's actual words?
-
Here are are all the lawsuit documents filed for the Seth Rich case, Huddleston v. Federal Bureau of Investigation:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17211651/huddleston-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation/
-
9 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:
I sure see a lot of mentions of John McAdams and Vincent Bugliosi on that "Conspiracy Theory" page, but I don't see the names or work of Doug Horne, Dr. David Mantik, and Dr. Gary Aguilar there.
The article isn't long enough to go into that kind of detail. (Particularly with all the conspiracy theories there are.)
Same thing is true on the Wikipedia article on the WC/HSCA version of the narrative.
-
I've found the legal document indicating that the FBI has Seth Rich's laptop, a CD, and tape drive:
The document states that the FBI doesn't want to release information on it because it will reveal methods it uses in its investigations.
What this tells me is that the FBI investigated the possibility that Seth Rich was a source of DNC e-mails leak.
But it doesn't tell me that he indeed was.
So I am still inclined to believe the Mueller report.
-
5 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy
Give it a quick read and consider how reliable and true it is even though it has so many sources.
It represents the official WC and HSCA narratives quite well.
If you read this Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories
you'll find that it represents the various conspiracy theories quite well.
-
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:
Then in the current litigation, the FBI first denied having them, and then later admitted it, and admitted having the files contained in Seth Rich's computer.
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:Citation please. Just on the allegation that the FBI admitted to having Seth Rich's computer and it having DNC e-mails on it.
Just in case you missed it @Keven Hofeling, still waiting for a citation. I can't find anything on the FBI admitting they have Seth Rich's computer, holding DNC e-mails. Other than right-wing fake news sites.
EDIT: Never mind.
-
3 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:
Then in the current litigation, the FBI first denied having them, and then later admitted it, and admitted having the files contained in Seth Rich's computer.
Citation please. Just on the allegation that the FBI admitted to having Seth Rich's computer and it having DNC e-mails on it.
EDIT: Never mind.
-
13 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:
RO: You mean Rich could not have been the source for that one set of leaks on July14?
Roger,
My original claim was that that I trust Robert Mueller's judgement and so I believe what is in his report. His report debunks the Seth Rich theory that you and Keven believe.
Keven challenged Mueller's report. I responded by giving sources that supported Mueller's conclusions, and that may have been the sources he used himself.
I am not debating with you guys on the theory you believe. I'm defending my belief in Mueller's report by providing support for it.
Having straightened that out...
Yes, if Mueller is wrong then it is theoretically possible that the e-mails Assange released in July could have come from before Rich's death. (Though that wouldn't explain the non-Rich source for the additional e-mails Assange got in July, after Rich's death.)
But I repeat, I trust Robert Mueller's report over the theory you guys believe.
(And don't forget, Seymour Hersh admitted that what he'd claimed about Seth Rich was merely an unsubstantiated rumor. And that, because of that, the Fox news report based on it had to be pulled and Fox had to pay a six digit lawsuit settlement for having run it.)
-
1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I doubt you can find a reliable source for that. Because I doubt it is true.
When challenged on their reporting of this story, Fox News retracted it without apology or explanation. Seth Rich's family sued Fox News in March 2018 for having engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct" by fabricating the story defaming their son and thereby intentionally inflicting emotional distress on them. Fox News reached a seven-figure settlement with the Rich family in October 2020
1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:SIXTH DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. SEIDEL: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.84.1.pdf
___________
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.197917/gov.uscourts.txed.197917.92.0.pdf
___________
Edited by Keven Hofeling
A guy named Brian Huddleston sues the FBI, and within his document he states his opinion regarding Seth Rich.
You consider that to be a reliable source for what you believe? This guy's opinion?
Oh Please!
So I was right... you can't find a reliable source for what you wrote about Seth Rich.
-
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:
In any case, why would you trust something you read on Wikipedia?
I trust Wikipedia articles because they are sourced. By reputable sources, not far-right or far-left fake news sites.
Also because there are competing editors for each article, which helps ensure that BS doesn't get published. Or if it does, it gets challenged and then removed.
-
1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Hersh cautioned that his claim may not be true. He later said that he had relayed "gossip" and that he was fishing for information.
1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:"Famed journalist Seymour “Sy” Hersh stated that he had confirmed that Seth Rich was responsible for leaking the DNC emails.
Below are two reputable sources reporting what I said.
I'll bet you have no reputable sources for your counter-claim.
NPR - Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale
"I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it."
The Man Behind The Scenes In Fox News' Discredited Seth Rich Story
Hersh now says he was fishing for information from Butowsky. "I did not talk to anybody at the FBI — not about this," Hersh tells NPR. "Nothing is certain until it's proved. And I didn't publish any story on this."
Note the Butowsky is the person who took Hersh's story to Fox News. (Who, recall, went with it. The retracted it. Then was sued for it and had to pay six figures to settle the suit.)
Trump on releasing the JFK records
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
They don't accept what hasn't been proven, and rightly so.
Data dumps and the posting of a dozen videos is not going to prove anything or win any converts.
I have no double standard. I was given a lead as to where to look for proof of FBI lies about having Seth Rich's laptop, I researched it, and agreed that the FBI lied.
I furthermore reported to @W. Niederhut what I had found.
As I pointed out, Sy Hersch himself said that what he said was just a rumor. And that the Fox News report that came from that was pulled, after which Fox was sued because of it and settled out of court for six figures.
It's odd how you never address those things.
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.
Is that any more condescending than you saying that we have been duped by the deep state (or whoever you think has duped us) and MSM "fake news?"
BTW, here is what I said:
"But I think you guys have probably been hoodwinked by Trump-friendly fake news sites... OR by commentators who have been hoodwinked by those sites."
I have a suspicion that these commentators have been mislead by anti-Democratic propaganda.