Sandy Larsen
-
Posts
9,125 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Sandy Larsen
-
-
15 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:
When they arrested Oswald at the theatre shortly after the murder, they had no evidence of him killing Kennedy. They arrested him because he was the designated patsy.
You mean the DPD was told that Oswald was the designated patsy, and that was the reason DPD directed their police officers to go to the Texas Theater and arrest Oswald?
If so, that would mean that the head of the DPD was in the the conspiracy.
I think it's much more likely that the conspirators somehow brought to the DPD's attention evidence of some kind indicating Oswald should be a suspect. Faked evidence.
-
You're wasting your time Keven. Ideologues hear only what they want to hear and they disregard the rest.
-
5 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:
That is my theory. Hard to believe Pompeo was Tucker's source. More likely Trump who btw can't be trusted about anything.
I doubt Trump is Tucker's source because Tucker knows he isn't trustworthy.
-
2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:
My point is, saying Johnson did not want "a blue ribbon commission" is not the right question ask. Who was it that wanted, not just any commission, but the kind of commission the WC was and was able to bring it to fruition?
Jim,
I don't know if you realize this, but Roger's motive for insisting the WC was Johnson's idea is that his theory is that Johnson was a major player in the assassination plot, and indeed a necessary element of it.
That seems to be the case to me, after debating this point with Roger on other recent threads.
-
Tucker hates Pompeo and says he's a criminal. In return, Pompeo tells Tucker some CIA secrets?
Makes no sense to me.
Were Tucker and Pompeo pals in the past?
-
Jim,
I don't understand... how do you get the impression that Pompeo is Tucker's source?
The impression I get is that we still don't know who the sources is, but that Pompeo (former CIA Director) is afraid Tucker's source will reveal something that the CIA doesn't want us to know. So Pompeo has a lawyer call Tucker to try and intimidate him into not talking.
-
15 hours ago, Richard Bertolino said:
It could be that the Mexico City office did realize that there was no credible evidence that Oswald had been to the Cuban consulate, and that's why they didn't say so. Or it could be that somebody in MC knew what was going on but did not tell Winston Scott. Or it could be that Scott understood what was going on but that it was too sensitive to put into normal communications. I don't think that a firm conclusion can be made here as a basis for a Mexico City explanation.
Richard,
I agree with al the points that you make here.
Even though I admitted to egg on my face, that was only to admit that Mexico City did indeed know about the Cuban Consulate visit but chose not to report it to headquarters. I never thought that there was was reason to believe there was a nefarious reason behind that decision. Including anything to do with a mole hunt.
-
18 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:
Sandy, it wasn't Harriman who contacted AF1 to inform LBJ the lone gunmen was in custody -- it was McGeorge Bundy.
Right. But it was Harriman who said he consulted the Sovietologists.
When I said that Harriman conveyed this information to Air force One, I didn't mean personally/directly. But I have corrected my comment to make it clear.
Thanks.
-
59 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:
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.
-
44 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:
Saying there is evidence implies it is valid There is no such thing as invalid evidence. If it's invalid it isn't evidence.
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.
44 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:RO: Now that is real nonsense. How could you even say "of course" to me after reading my thread showing why Johnson was an essential participant in the murder plan.
Because I disagree with you. I don't believe Johnson was an essential participant.
44 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:You did read that thread didn't you?
Yes, I read it. And I criticized it and showed you how it falls apart under scrutiny.
44 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:Perhaps you should respond to those points if you disagree rather than these unsupported claims you are making.
What unsupported claims?
Almost everything I've said are either known facts, or are theories believed by a lot of people, including Jim D.
-
On 4/25/2024 at 1:49 PM, James DiEugenio said:
Here you go Sandy. Direct link to CIA IG Report. Which, IIRC, Fetter has no footnotes to. Kind of mind boggling.
Thanks Jim!
-
9 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:
So, the fact that this super retaliatory scenario was not even reported in any well documented way by the Generals known for holding that sentiment suggest ( to me anyways ) that they knew Russian and Cuba were not the perpetrators of the JFKA.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:
What evidence implicating Oswald are you talking about, Sandy?
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.
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:And of course they knew [Oswald] didn't do it.
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.
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:Johnson chose to go with the lone nut story because he wanted no part in blaming Cuba or Russia, not because it was somehow the easy choice.
That IS the easy choice!
1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:The same question goes for your claim that there was evidence implicating Cuba and Russia.
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).
-
20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:
RO: A great deal of effort? This is the CIA with virtually unlimited resources and no one effectively watching what they did. Plots were hatched, adjusted and abandoned all the time. You don't know about most of them.
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.
20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:But do not obscure the fact that the amorphous group that wanted to get rid of Kennedy had several factions. Only some of them thought it was a good idea to use the murder as a pretext to go after Castro, which would have led to a war with the Soviets, who were pledged to respond such an attack, not to mention Kennedy that had given them a no invasion pledge barely one year earlier.
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!
20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:But your history is a bit off. By late '63 intelligence was saying the Soviets had caught up with the US.
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/
20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:RO: No, the coverup had nothing to do with something Harriman said.
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. (McGeorge Bundy made the radio call.)
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.)
20 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:No the Cuban invasion was the preferred option of only one faction.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!
-
1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:
The below Nov 23rd 1963 document says the person doing the transcribing knew that the person who phoned the soviet embassy on Oct 1st speaking broken russian was the same person who had phoned the soviet embassy on Sept 28th from the cuban embassy speaking broken russian.
Therefore the transcriptionist knew Oswald had been to the cuban embassy.
I just read this Bill Simpich document:
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.
-
20 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:
The WC was Johnson's creation. Who was responsible for turning it into a vehicle to frame Oswald, if not him?, That's the important question, not whose idea the WC was in the first place.
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.
-
38 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:
Now, when the transcriptionist knew this is not clear. Did they know this at the time they made the transcription or is this something they figured out on Nov 23rd when listening back to the audio tape (an audio tape that was supposed to have been destroyed)?
Oops, I should have read more carefully. You do see the problem. Well, then, my prior post is for other people reading the thread.
-
20 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:
The below Nov 23rd 1963 document says the person doing the transcribing knew that the person who phoned the soviet embassy on Oct 1st speaking broken russian was the same person who had phoned the soviet embassy on Sept 28th from the cuban embassy speaking broken russian.
Therefore the transcriptionist knew Oswald had been to the cuban embassy.
Now, when the transcriptionist knew this is not clear. Did they know this at the time they made the transcription or is this something they figured out on Nov 23rd when listening back to the audio tape (an audio tape that was supposed to have been destroyed)?
LINK: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=44666#relPageId=4
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.
-
46 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:
Simple question - if Angleton suspected someone of being a Soviet mole, would he necessarily expose him? Wouldn’t it have been more clever of Angleton to leave him in place?
Makes sense to me. Use the mole to send disinformation.
-
8 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:
I think so, too. I don't think Oswald was sent to the Soviet Union as part of a mole hunt, even if some very respectable researches disagree. I think Oswald was spying for the Soviets before he went to the Soviet Union.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:
But this seems to me to be a manufactured problem.
I think that all this mole stuff regarding Oswald is manufactured.
-
On 4/25/2024 at 4:07 AM, Richard Bertolino said:
Before JFK was killed, why did the Mexico City station hide all the evidence of the Oswald visit to the Cuban consulate from CIA Headquarters, while admitting the visits to the Soviet consulate?
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.
-
59 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:
Sandy, who were the "CIA plotters" of the JFK assassination? Do you have any names? For example was it Allen Dulles, James Angleton, Richard Helms, William King Harvey or David Morales? Would Gen. Edward Lansdale of the Air Force be considered a "CIA plotter" against JFK because of his long association with Allen Dulles?
My guess would be Allen Dulles, James Angleton, Edward Lansdale, and David Phillips at a lower level.
59 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:You mention the JCS - do you have the names of any JCS plotters who were likely or definitely involved in the JFK assassination?
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.
59 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:What do you think of Sean Fetter's thesis which is it is more likely that the right wing crazies of the Air Force were more likely involved in the JFK assassination than "CIA plotters?"
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.)
Incision made on JFK's head (Kennedy assassination) Nothing to see here: an incision made on JFK's head...
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
My whole point is that some of the photos are faked.
If I assume one of the photos is real in order to prove that another is fake, then I have accomplished my goal whether or not I am right in my assumption! Because if I am right in my assumption that the one photo is real, then I have proven the other is fake. On the other hand, if I am wrong in my assumption that the one photo is real... well the only way I can be wrong is if the one I assumed is real is really fake! So, either way, I have proven a photo to be faked.
This obvious fact seems to be beyond your comprehension level. If it weren't, you would have seen the flaw in your critique right away before posting it.
Or... maybe it's just your dogmatic insistence that is making you say dumb things.
What "irrefutable scientific evidence" are you talking about? If you think that a photo in and of itself is irrefutable evidence, then you are sorely mistaken. Unless you think that Dick Van Dyke really danced with penguins.