Sandy Larsen

With a company that awful, one might be able to make some money going long on a short squeeze. Explanation for non-stock-traders: Normally you make money by buying it at a low price and selling at a higher price. (If you're lucky and the price goes up.) Short selling is when you do it backwards... to make money, first you sell the stock at a high price and later you buy it back at a lower price. (Again, if you're lucky and the price drops.) How do you sell a stock you don't own? You need to borrow from another trader. After you sell it, you MUST buy it back at some point so that you can give the stock back to the trader you borrowed it from. (You can lose your shirt short selling because stock prices can continue to rise for a long time, and you might have to buy it back when the price has gone up, say, 10 fold. Or 100 fold.) If there's anybody still with me, I'll tell you what a short squeeze is: Suppose you shorted Trump's stock. After some time Trump decides to sell his shares, at which time the price drops because demand for the stock is low. A lot of traders have shorted the stock and now need to buy it back. With all these traders buying the stock back at the same time, demand is suddenly HIGH and the price skyrockets. Here's an example of a short squeeze: Now, if instead of shorting the stock you decide to go long, that just means you buy and sell the normal way. You buy the stock well before Trump dumps his shares, when the price is "normal." Then you wait for the short squeeze and you sell at the high price. In all honesty, I would never short a stock that is owned by a small number of people. You can be forced to buy the stock back at any time by the trader you borrowed the stock from. Going long is a better choice for this Trump stock IMO. Unless you miss the squeeze... in which case you're hosed.

It appears to me that Bill Simpich made an error in his description of the two cables. Anybody, correct me if I am wrong. I make the correction here:

Oh good, we're cool then. After reading your reply I could see how my terse sentences could be taken as my being angry. But no. I was just repeating what I'd said before (to Roger) to explain why I wasn't reading all his links.

I apologize for using the term "data dump." I should have said that I don't have the time or energy level to read and respond to large posts. My comment wasn't meant as a criticism toward you. I meant it to be a statement of facts about my interest level. I'm sorry it came across as it did.

You, in contrast, question everything about the Tippit call report. Given that it is all questionable, you'll never be able to determine anything. Good luck with that M.O.

@Keven Hofeling, I don't have the time or energy level to read and respond to data dumps. I don't intend on becoming an expert on Russiagate. I defended the use of Wikipedia earlier, to Roger I guess. I respond here to a few things that "pop out."

As I explained earlier, I believe that the report was unaltered. The part about the Tippit couple hearing different accents isn't surprising at all.

The Senate report said that Kilimnik was a "Russian intelligence officer." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-has-new-intel-manafort-friend-kilimnik-gave-trump-n1264371

Thanks for you report and comments, Matt. While considering Bentley as the caller is intriguing, I have some problems with it. First, as NoTrueFlags points out, Bentley was living in Connecticut at the time, not New York. Second, I just don't see an intelligent, sophisticated person like Bentley making the call to someone who might be related to Tippit, living in a completely different part of the U.S. (Rather than calling authorities in Dallas, or Washington DC, or even in her own city, New York.) Third, I find it a little difficult to believe she would use a fake accent. And fourth, how would Bentley know that the orphan she'd seen several years earlier was the same person as Oswald? What I'm inclined to believe is that there was a woman who was charged with taking care of the orphan boy. And that she did have an accent. And that she called Tippit because she was unsophisticated. Finally, that she recognized Oswald as the orphan she had taken care of simply because they looked the same. When I was in my twenties, I bumped into a guy at Radio Shack who recognized me and remembered my first name. Yet he hadn't seen me since third grade. Point is, the looks of some people don't change a lot from childhood to adulthood.

Manafort admitted to the pertinent part of the characterization.

This is not hard. Many of the participants likely took notes during the interrogation, or shortly thereafter. Reports were then written up from the notes. Later, any report that mentioned Oswald watching the P. Parade was altered so that it didn't contradicted the official narrative. Finally, all the notes and draft reports mentioning Oswald watching the P. Parade were deep-sixed. Somehow Hosty's notes survived. REMEMBER, THIS WAS A COVERUP. This sort of thing that happens in coverups. All this talk about one person lying and another being honest is nonsense.

I personally don't think Oswald was ever in Mexico City. But I still don't think the purpose of the disinformation was a molehunt. For one thing, all the government agencies received the very same disinformation. So had it been leaked from one of them, there would be no telling from which it was leaked. Not a very good barium meal.

LHO may have washed his face at his rooming house, in a bathroom at the TSBD before leaving the building, or at the Texas Theater. I wonder how Oswald washed his face without also washing his hands. Or why he would keep his face clean but allow his hands to have residue on them. Makes no sense. But then, neither does it make sense for Oswald to purposely fake shoot at a president, in particular with live ammo.

Okay. But what was Hosty's motive for lying, when he wrote that Oswald claimed to have been out watching the Presidential Parade?

Manafort admitted to it in 2022. https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-campaign-chief-paul-manafort-owns-up-to-passing-sensitive-data-to-suspected-russian-agent

I was thinking of the second-floor encounter (that never happened) thread when I wrote that. I don't know if that is on this thread.

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.