Sandy Larsen

100% of the time? Of course not. Maybe 10% to 30%. Compared to maybe 1% to 3% for MSNBC.

Thank you Denny. It's very frustrating for me when people refuse to follow the evidence. Also, when people think a coverup can take place without people doing deceitful things.

Joe, What was Hosty's motive for lying, by saying that Oswald claimed to have been out watching the Presidential Parade? I'm afraid you haven't thought this through.

That's what I said: "I agree with the allegation. Wikipedia agrees with it. Everybody agrees with it."

As far as I can tell, none of what you posted relates to what I posted.

How do you suppose the CIA got 200,000 Ukrainians to protest against President Yanukovych for his corruption and his decision not to sign the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement... instead, choosing closer ties to Russia? Which the citizens wanted no part of. Oh, you mean the region of Ukraine stolen by Russia? Zelenskyy's government agreed with Boris Johnson, that it would be a mistake to sign that agreement. It would allow Putin to invade again, this time better prepared. (Source) If Ukrainian neutrality is what Putin wanted, why didn't he threaten to invade unless Ukraine agreed to it? When his troops were surrounding Ukraine, Putin could have said he wouldn't invade if they agreed not to join NATO. Instead, Putin go right in claiming to be there to protect everyone from the proliferation of neo-Nazis. No thank you.

I agree with the allegation. Wikipedia agrees with it. Everybody agrees with it. But those CIA edits don't stick. (Unless they are factual.) Other editors remove them. And if the CIA editor keeps making edits that get removed, they are flagged as rogue editors and their accounts are rescinded.

According to Wikipedia: In January 2019, Manafort's lawyers submitted a filing to the court in response to the allegation that Manafort had lied to investigators. Through an error in redacting, the document accidentally revealed that while he was campaign chairman, Manafort met with Konstantin Kilimnik, a likely Russian intelligence officer and an alleged operative of the "Mariupol Plan" which would separate eastern Ukraine by political means with Manafort's help.[69] The filing says Manafort gave him polling data related to the 2016 campaign and discussed a Ukrainian peace plan with him. Most of the polling data was reportedly public, although some was private Trump campaign polling data. Manafort asked Kilimnik to pass the data to Ukrainians Serhiy Lyovochkin and Rinat Akhmetov. The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in August 2020 that Manafort's contacts with Kilimnik and other affiliates of Russian intelligence "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" because his "presence on the Campaign and proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign."[70][71][34]

Another great thing about Wikipedia is that citations are plenty. If you're not so sure about something that is written in an article, you can quickly check its source.

Yes, conflict-of-interest editing of Wikipedia does occur. But on articles of considerable interest, these edits are quickly discovered and removed by other editors. And the accounts of the COI editors are pulled. Wikipedia is more reliable than other sources of information because both sides of an argument will have proponent editors. If no conclusion can be agreed upon, then both views will be given along with a statement that there are differing viewpoints.

I'm no expert, but I do know what is reported in the news. And I do know what Trump says and what Putin says. And I do have an opinion on Russiagate. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that your anti-Russiagate journalists are influenced by Russian propaganda in left-wing alternate/fake news sites. That sounds precisely like propaganda designed to deflect from the charge that Putin wanted Trump to win. There can be no doubt that Putin wants Trump to win. Trump has made it clear in his tweets and his speeches that he intend on removing American support from Ukraine. And that he says Putin should do "whatever the hell they want" with non-NATO countries like Ukraine. Without American support, the European support of Ukraine would likely also fade. And Putin would get his wish and take Ukraine. So of course Putin wants Trump to win. And he wanted him to win in 2016 and 2020 s well. Putin is Trump's pal and Trump is Putin's useful idiot.

Yes, that is what the coverup artists would have done had there been a witness saying that they saw a guy running down from the sixth floor right after the shooting. But there was no such witness. As I said, the coverup artists tried to keep their narratives as close as possible to what the witnesses and films showed.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

LOL, another good one! It's good to have Ron back with his one-liners.

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.

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?

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.

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. Yes, that is correct. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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