Sandy Larsen

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

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

So you think that Hosty was mistaken? Well okay, I think that Fritz and Bookhout were mistaken.

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. Or someone altered the report after it was written. 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.

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.

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.

Can you give some examples?

Okay, then you know my answer. And, I suspect, based on fake information they got from Trump-friendly alternative news sites. They support the radical right. Trump benefits from that. Trump-friendly fake news site are pervasive on the internet. I don't know which ones those "journalists" read.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

There is no double standard. For everything I believe regarding the JFKA, I have in front of me a large amount of evidence pointing to something that contradicts something accepted by the WC. I can analyze the evidence for myself to determine the truth. I don't have to rely on the opinions of commentators. Nor do I have to rely on the uncorroborated stories of individuals. Generally speaking, I don't trust other people's judgments. I like to base my opinions on raw evidence and corroborated statements.

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.