Sandy Larsen

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If other EF-JFKA participants weigh in with their well-known partisan views and accusations...should not their comments be removed, but not the whole post? 

The problem is, there is not much to be said about the topic of the thread. And so, instead, members talk about politics.

That's the problem with contemporary political threads.

BTW, the reason I haven't moved the thread is because members have been careful not to say negative things about the opposite party and their politicians. Also, admittedly, I find the comments interesting to read.

And -- as we all know -- the comments will stop being posted if the thread is moved to Political Discussions.

I think that a multiparty system would be disastrous.

Suppose we had three parties. Isn't it obvious that if two of those parties are similar, they would split their vote, thereby allowing a minority to choose a candidate? That wouldn't be democratic.

I find it rather amazing that an individual can agree with almost everything given on a particular party's platform. But that is the case for me, and I'll bet it is for a large majority of people.

I'm a Democrat and I agree with almost everything the Democrats have legislated and signed into law. Admittedly, I wince at a few things that Biden has done unilaterally. For example, forgiven student debt for some people. There really should be a program legislated to help students across the board. And raised taxes to pay for it.

Having said all that, I'd be in favor of a multiple party system if we had runoff voting. That is, a candidate would need greater than 50% of the vote to win.

17 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

However, although Newman and Scott (to name just two) have provided well-documented analyses that  mole hunts were conducted with Oswald’s file…

…in the JFK critical community it seems like no one cares.

Bill,

I certainly care, and I think there are others who do as well. I'd like to see a debate on the reason(s) identification disinformation was inserted into Oswald's 201.

The reason provided by Jim Hargrove is the one I've always thought to be the case. But I'm open to the possibility of there being mole hunts. However, I need an educated proponent to convince me.

17 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

 So I will broaden my request - any analysis about the coverup or the molehunts gratefully appreciated.  Thanks.

I have created a thread for this discussion to take place:

While I am quite familiar with the patsification side of this issue (and superficially aware of the molehunt side), I am no expert and therefore cannot debate this myself. But I am definitely interested in following the topic.

Having said that, I do have one comment I wish to make. From what I've seen, it seems to me that the approach taken by the molehunt side was to first accept that Oswald was being used in a molehunt, and then to search for evidence supporting that idea. In contrast, the approach taken by the other, patsification side was to first consider the evidence, and based on that search for a solution explaining it. I generally believe that the latter line of reasoning is superior to the former.

Certain CIA officials filed Oswald's 201 file in Angleton's Special Investigations Group (CI/SIG) office, where the CIA "spied on spies." In addition, CIA officials inserted disinformation into Lee Harvey Oswald's file regarding his identification. For example, the middle name Henry instead of Harvey.

Furthermore, cables with this disinformation were sent to various departments of the Federal Government on October 10, 1963.

Some researchers believe that the purpose for doing these things was to identify moles inside the CIA. As I understand it, only a mole would relay such information back to Moscow, and he could be identified that way.

Other researchers believe that the purpose for doing these things was to lower Oswald's profile so that he would not be identified as a potential threat against President Kennedy during his Dallas visit. And thereby he could be made the Patsy.

I'm hoping that proponents of both sides will debate this issue on this thread.

14 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It appears that, contrary to Cory's argument, (above) political commentary is being permitted here, with the exception of evidenced-based critiques of Trumpism.

Paul didn't use a pejorative against any particular (contemporary) party or politician, so no forum rule broken. But it's looking like a mod will have to move this thread to Political Discussions

Thanks for posting this important information, Keven. Before you began posting here, I was completely unaware of the logarithmically-scanned Zapruder frames that reveal so well the blacked out area on the back of the head.

Forum member @Andrej Stancak did do an analysis on certain frames (317?) that showed that the BOH area was unnaturally dark. But I don't know if his analysis was received well by people who aren't technically inclined. Even before that, I pointed out that the "shadow" on the back of Kennedy's head was darker than the shadow on the back of Jackie's head, which makes no sense because -- as one can see in many photos that day -- her hair was noticeably darker than his.

Okay, thanks Bill.

I must say, your line of reasoning is way, way different from mine.

But so it is, as forum member Ben Cole would say.

Good luck!

31 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

On Sandy's question - I think Greg Parker got it right - Oswald was keeping an eye on Joe Molina, who worked at the TSBD.  William Lowery of the local Communist Party - and an FBI informant - had kept an eye on Molina for years as a possible recruit because of his long advocacy within the local Latino community.  Thanks to Lowery, Jim Hosty also kept an eye on Molina.  Molina was actually on the conservative side, but he had a long history of activism.   I think Oswald was watching Molina even during lunch on 11/22, and may have followed him right out to the steps during the motorcade.   Molina was the only other person who was detained by the Dallas police, and he got a midnight visit from DPD intelligence chief Pat Gannaway and his boys the night of 11/22 where they tossed his home and interrogated him throughout the day of 11/23.  Molina lost his job and filed a suit against various entities who publicized his detention.

There is some connection between this Molina story and the coffeecake conversation with Buell Frazier's sister Linnie Mae Randle and Ruth Paine where Ruth got wind from Linnie that there was a job available at the TSBD and Ruth told Lee about it.  The story goes - recounted by Jim Douglass and others - that a better paying job was called in to Ruth by Robert Adams at the Texas Employment Commission, and Ruth didn't pass that information on to Lee before he took that job.  Robert Adams is also believed to have had some connection was "Bob" Odum better known as Bard Odum of the FBI who was Ruth's handler.   The Texas Employment Commission is one of the least-studies and most-important aspects of the Lee Oswald story.  

Huh?

Are you saying that you don't know how it came about that Oswald just happened to get a job where the plotters wanted him to be working so that he could take the blame for the assassination?

You do believe that the plotters designated Oswald to be the patsy prior to 11/22, don't you?

I'm gonna have to move this thread to Political Discussions if it isn't tied into the JFKA soon.

@Bill Simpich, how did the plotters get patsy Oswald to work for the TSBD? It seems like that is where they wanted him to be.

25 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Thanks for our inquiry, Sandy. No, I did not give any card numbers to the Rep nor did he ask for these. 

Okay, thank goodness. The ordeal sounded very suspicious.

9 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

I'd have to agree with the premise of Mr. Swanson's article.

"...an amorphous group of unelected corporate lawyers, bankers, and intelligence and military officials..." murdered the President of the United States.

And it was extremely compartmentalized...

The compartmentalization is what made the large conspiracy work. Only a small few at the top would know what was going one, besides the assassination team (the gunmen). Not knowing what was happening, those following the orders of the plotters couldn't be indicted of anything, and couldn't squeal on anyone else.

Ruth Paine, for example. She was instructed by he handler to call Truly and ask for a job for Oswald. There's nothing nefarious sounding in that. Of course, she might have suspected the CIA was involved... but is she going to risk making her suspicion known? About the organization that killed the president and could do the same with her?

Much easier to stay dumb.

On 3/13/2024 at 11:26 PM, Robert Morrow said:

On 3/13/2024 at 9:50 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

So what's you point?

Lyndon Johnson's Motive for the JFK Assassination.

But you yourself have been highlighting the fact that very early on LBJ worried that the assassination might be a communist plot.

Why would LBJ think that if he was the instigator of the plot? Why would he be worried he might be killed next?

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

He predicted that if Garrison was allowed to proceed as he was Clay Shaw would be convicted

But what could Shaw be convicted of? Planning an assassination (without implementing it)?

17 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

On 1/7/2024 at 7:05 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Your poor spelling notwithstanding, I’m not going anywhere, pal. I look forward to commenting on all of your posts and calling out your absurd claims.

17 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

Moderator(s):

Doesn't this constitute harassment? 

The admin staff voted to put Jonathan on probation shortly after that and other violating posts.

He hasn't posted since.

13 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

Was Oswald being set-up for taking the blame of the Powers shoot-down, to divert suspicion from the Mole that Popov had said had leaked the plane's details in 1958/59?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I prefer that the mole theory be  studied in its own thread.

For those who don't recall, Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore was ordered to pressure Dr. Perry and others at Parkland Hospital into testifying for the HSCA that the (front) neck wound was an exit wound, in order to support the magic bullet theory. Dr. Perry told this to a colleague, Dr. Donald Miller, in 1975.

(I think I got that right.)

Elmer Moore told graduate student Jim Gochenaur that he regretted pressuring Dr. Perry into changing his testimony.

Is this because Gochenaur confronted Moore on this issue?

(If anybody googles Gochenaur, be sure to use my spelling, as it seems to be the correct one.)

RIP Jim Gochenaur.

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

How does this relate to JFK's assassination itself, or how it led us to this point?  Should it be moved to the Political Discussions topic?

If it continues off-topic, it might need to be moved.

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Perhaps a better question is why is it that comments against Biden are met with furor but W is free to insult Trump supporters or even basic Republicans?

The moderators are not political cronies. The issue has been resolved.

16 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

The Microsoft Security representative asked me a number of questions that I answered about my credit card, bank debit card, bank account and cell phone. I waited on the phone while the staff at Microsoft Security checked the veracity of my answers. Everything was proven accurate.

I'm sorry what happened to you Doug.

Did you give the Microsoft Security representative any of your bank account or credit card numbers?

If you did, then I'm afraid to say that you have been scammed. You should immediately call the banks for each of the account and credit card numbers you gave out and tell them what happened. They will know what to do.

I really, really hope you didn't give out any account number. And especially not you social security number. If you gave out your social security number they will steal your identity.

17 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

On 3/13/2024 at 12:19 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Congratulations Doug, you are a confirmed target of NIAC, a propaganda organization aligned with the Iranian government. Recall that Iran is the primary supporter of the terrorist organization Hamas.

17 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

This display was posted on Facebook and read by millions. Your quarrel should be with Facebook for its being posted there.

My point is that you are propagating their propaganda.

18 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

On 3/14/2024 at 2:47 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

The Israelis say they bombed Rafah to kill a Hamas commander who was involved in stealing humanitarian aid and giving it to Hamas operatives.

18 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

The Israelis lie constantly.

Not this time.

The Israelis gave the name of the Hamas commander they targeted and killed, Mohammed Abu Hasna.

According to BBC, Palestinian health officials provided a list of the five people killed by Israelis in the strike. Mohammed Abu Hasna is on the list.

I haven't seen any denial in the MSM that Hasna was a Hamas commander... who was stealing humanitarian aid and giving it to Hamas militants.

Maybe if you check your anti-Biden propaganda sites you'll be able to find a denial.

7 minutes ago, George Govus said:

I can't edit that post to delete that ridiculous, large image (3.25 MB). That thread is pinned and locked. Any chance someone could delete that thing for me?

It should be gone now, George. (Or you should be able to delete it from you attachment space.)

On 3/12/2024 at 10:33 AM, Jeff Royle said:

I copied and pasted the title of the book directly from Amazon.  Maybe the new edition has a different subtitle.

Yep, there are two different subtitles.