Sandy Larsen

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.)

On 4/24/2024 at 12:00 PM, Roger Odisio said:

But in joining he would insist on certain prerogatives. Early on in the process, e.g., he would insist that there was to be no attack on Cuba.  That would surely have risked a war with the Soviets and his presidency would be likely to go up in smoke.  There would be those who refused to accept that and would continue planting the links of Oswald to Cuba.  But once he became president he quickly squelched them by making his preference officially known.

The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets.

It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one.

To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted.

Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory).

Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence.

But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.)

On 4/24/2024 at 4:32 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Columbia University protests: What's really happening isn't what you've been told. (slate.com)

I am all for anti-war protests on campus. (And off campus.) But I have a suspicion that the police were called in because some of the protesters are disrupting normal campus functioning.

A little like the Golden Gate Bridge being shut down due to protests there last week.

On 4/24/2024 at 5:52 AM, Steve Thomas said:

And so it follows that Generation Beta will be born from 2025 to 2039

I predict that the new lettering system for generations -- Greek -- won't make it past Generation Beta. (Generation Gamma, anybody?) Americans aren't into foreign alphabets... with the exception of scientists, physicists, and engineers.

I'll bet that after Generation Beta, Generation C will be used. And alternate names Generations A and B will be used for Generations Alpha and Beta.

On 4/23/2024 at 5:48 PM, W. Niederhut said:

The gist of it was that Rudy Giuliani has always been a sleazeball.

I've always had a low opinion of Giuliani, even prior to 9/11. But it's only in the last several years that I've realized he's an idiot.

On 4/7/2024 at 5:51 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

@Bill Simpich

 

Bill,

Researcher Thomas "Tommy" Graves wrote the following and sent it by e-mail to me. You might be interested in it.

The problem is, "Byetkov"/Obyedkov wasn't a U.S.-loyal double agent -- he was, as Angleton says in his 6 February 1976 Church Committee testimony (where he refers to "Byetkov"/Obyedkov as "the other hangnail"), a Kremlin-loyal triple agent (i.e., the CIA mistakenly thought it had successfully recruited him). I don't know if Angleton realized that *in 1963,* but he talks about it in his 1976 Church Committee testimony, and in retrospect it's very important for the simple reason that one shouldn't trust what a Kremlin-loyal triple agent tells one. Da?

Another problem is that Bill conflates "Byetkov"/Obyedkov with Boris Orekhov (SHAMROCK), another Kremlin-loyal triple agent, who duped J. Edgar Hoover in 1966 (iirc) into believing that the KGB had undertaken a six-month investigation (it hadn't) right after the assassination (not ostensibly "in 1967," as Bill seems to believe) and guess what? -- allegedly determined that the evil, evil Military Industrial Complex (or some-such thing) had killed JFK!!!  I seem to remember having found a document about SHAMROCK in this regard a few years ago at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.

Yet another mistake that Bill keeps making is that alleged JFKA "cover up artist" wasn't Angleton, but, according to John Newman and British researcher Malcolm Blunt, KGB "mole" Bruce Solie in the mole-hunting Office of Security, who not only sent (or duped his confidant,  protégé, and mole-hunting subordinate, Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a *planned-to-fail* hunt for "Popov's Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA, but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the Warren Commission and seems to have managed to lose Volume V of the OS files on Oswald in the late 1970s.

 

@Bill Simpich,

Tommy Graves said that he miswrote something in this. Where he wrote:

"...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the Warren Commission..."

he meant to write:

"...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the HSCA..."

The changed word is in bold (mine).

I will correct the original.

11 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

@Sandy Larsen, @Keven Hofeling, et al. - Here, Pat presents solid scientific evidence of a tangential wound from a missile on a human skull and its effects.

The "solid scientific evidence of a tangential wound" that Pat posted has nothing to do with Kennedy. It's somebody else's wound.

Keven has presented Robinson's ARRB testimony explaining what that triangular piece is, at least the part of it above the ear, as indicated in his drawing below. Though apparently he recalled its locationto be a couple centimeters nearer the ear than its actual location. He said that it was a flap of skin. As well as the location of a 1/4 inch wound.

11 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Yet, despite this clear evidence, you choose to believe speculative authors who exploit your credulity.

Neither Keven nor I have commented on what the beliefs of any authors are. Only Pat has done that. To which I've warned readers not to believe what Pat says about other researchers because of his history of misrepresenting the evidence and what the researchers believe.

Keven went one step further and proved that what Pat said were misrepresentations. No big surprise for me.

11 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

You accept the claim that this wound is merely a surgical incision, based solely on the word of someone utterly unqualified to judge such matters.

That was Dr. Paul Peters' judgment after carefully observing the autopsy photographs. Why do you consider a medical doctor to be "utterly unqualified?" (See the video in the OP.)

Oh, I know. Because his opinion contradicts your preconceived notions. You have already admitted to being a closed-minded ideologue regarding the authenticity of the photos, films, and x-rays. So why not regarding this incision (as described by Dr. Peters) as well?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Tom Robinson: I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple.

Tom Robinson, nineteen years later: I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek.

Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. 

 

Apparently some think this makes perfect sense.

Apparently Pat thinks that it is Horne himself relaying the above lines.

What is a Kent?

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So, you can follow the bouncing ball, right? In Fetzer/Mantik/Horne Bizarro world, Robinson's description of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with Joe O'Donnell's claim there was a bullet hole high on the forehead.

It's bizarro only in  your mind, Pat. If Horne told the story, it would make perfect sense.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Heck, [Horne] claims Tom Robinson, his star witness, was involved in the clandestine delivery of JFK's body at Parkland an hour and a half before its official arrival.

Unlike Horne, Pat Speer routinely kicks inconvenient facts under the rug. In contrast, Doug Horne studies all the facts he can find and comes up with a cogent hypothesis that explains it all.

What Pat scoffs at here is too much for his thought process to handle. But for most intelligent people it makes perfect sense given what evidence we have. JFK's body was indeed delivered to Bethesda Hospital well before it's official arrival time. Most likely it was flown in by helicopter from the airport. It arrived in a plain shipping casket, not the ornate bronze one that it was put in at Parkland.

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

What did Tom Robinson tell the HSCA? That he recalled a small wound on Kennedy's temple.

What did Tom Robinson tell the ARRB? That there were two or three tiny wounds on Kennedy's cheek. 

What did Doug Horne take from his statements? That there was a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye.

This is a perfect example of Pat Speer slandering a researcher. First he misrepresents the researcher's evidence. Then he states the researcher's conclusion based on that evidence... which of course makes no sense due to Pat's misrepresentation. And so, he concludes, there is something wrong with the researcher's thinking.

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, how did Johnson eventually find out about the plots?

It was the Drew Pearson story through Johnny Roselli.

When that got into the papers, LBJ told Helms he wanted a report on this.

Yeah, but that wasn't till 1966. When Roselli claimed that Castro had sent some hitmen to the U.S. to kill Kennedy in retaliation for him trying to kill Castro.

Which, BTW, I don't believe given that I believe the assassination plotters were CIA. And the CIA certainly wouldn't have acquired their hitmen from Castro.

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is how we got the CIA IG Report.

After reading it, Johnson told his assistant he now thought the CIA was involved in JFK's murder.

That's interesting. I'd like to see that report.

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Although [LBJ] never said that in public.  The closest he got I think was when he said Oswald was likely not working alone. He had some help.

I think it is likely that LBJ trusted what Hoover had to say about there being a real possibility of a communist plot.

Hoover said publicly very early on (Nov. 25?) that Oswald was the lone gunman. But on Nov. 29 he said the following to LBJ by phone:

"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."

7 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Twymann details and confirms Lyndon Johnson PERSONALLY calling Will Fritz late on Saturday 11/23/63 and telling him to QUIT interrogating Oswald.

If that is true, Captain Fritz ignored LBJ's order.

Excerpted from the report of the Oswald interrogation that took place in Fritz's office on 11/24/1963 at 9:30 AM:

This interview started at approximately 9:30 a.m. on Sunday, November 24, 1963. The interview was conducted in the office of Captain WIll Fritz of the Homicide Bureau, Dallas Police. Present at the interview in addition to Oswald were Captain Fritz, Postal Inspector Holmes, SAIC Sorrels, Inspector Kelley and four members of the Homicide Squad. The interview had just begun when I arrived and Captain Fritz was again requesting Oswald to identify the place where the photograph of him holding the gun was taken. Captain Fritz indicated that it would save the Police a great deal of time if he would tell them where the place was located. Oswald refused to discuss the matter. Captain Fritz asked, "Are you a Communist?" Oswald answered, "No, I am a Marxist but I am not a Marxist Leninist." Captain Fritz asked him what the difference was and Oswald said it would take too long to explain it to him. Oswald said that he became interested in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee while he was in New Orleans; that he wrote to the Committee's Headquarters in New York and received some Committee literature and a letter signed by Alex Hidell. He stated that he began to distribute that literature in New Orleans and it was at that time that he got into an altercation with a group and he was arrested. He said his opinions concerning Fair Play for Cuba are well known; that he appeared on Bill Stukey's television program in New Orleans on a number of occasions and was interviewed by the local press often.

He denies knowing or ever seeing Hidell in New Orleans, said he believed in all of the tents of the Fair Play for Cuba and the things which the Fair Play for Cuba Committee stood for, which was free intercourse with Cuba and freedom for tourists of both countries to travel within each other's borders.

Among other things, Oswald said that Cuba should have full diplomatic relationship with the United States. I asked him if he thought that the President's assassination would have any effect on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He said there would be no change in the attitude of the American people toward Cuba with President Johnson becoming President because they both belonged to the same political party and the one would follow pretty generally the policies of the other . He stated that he is an avid reader of Russian literature whether it is communistic or not; that he subscribes to "The Militant," which, he says, is the weekly of the Socialist party in the United States (it is a copy of "the Militant" that Oswald is shown holding in the photograph taken form this effects at Irving Street). At that time he asked me whether I was an FBI Agent and I said that I was not that I was a member of the Secret Service. He said when he was standing in front of the Textbook Building and about to leave it, a young crew-cut man rushed up to him and said he was from the Secret Service, showed a book of identification, and asked him where the phone was. Oswald said he pointed toward the pay phone in the building and that he saw the man actually go to the phone before he left.

I asked Oswald whether as a Marxist he believed that religion was an opiate of the people and he said very definitely so that all organized religions tend to become monopolistic and are the causes of a great deal of class warfare. I asked him whether he considered the Catholic Church to be an enemy of the Communist philosophy and he said well, there was no Catholicism in Russia; that the closest to it is the Orthodox Churches but he said he would not further attempt to have him say something which could be construed as being anti-religious or anti-Catholic.

Capt. Fritz displayed an Enco street map of Dallas which had been found among Oswald's effects at the rooming house. Oswald was asked whether the map was his and wheter he had put some marks on it. He said it was his and remarked "My God don't tell me there's a mark near where this thing happened." The mark was pointed out to him and he said "What about the other marks on the map?I put a number of marks on it. I was looking for work and marked the places where I went for jobs or where I heard there were jobs."

Since it was obvious to Captain Fritz that Oswald was not going to be cooperative, he terminated the interview at that time.

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But I have always wondered if Johnson really believed what Hoover was telling him.  Because after proffering this evidence, Hoover tells him that the picture is not Oswald and the voice on the tape is not either.  I have never known what to make of this.  Maybe LBJ realized he was being tricked and decided to call it off?

I imagine that LBJ didn't want to make a rush decision on retaliating against a foreign nation, particularly against a nuclear power like the Soviet Union. At the same time, Katzenbach and others were advising against blaming any conspiracy whatsoever, and placing the blame squarely on LHO. That probably seemed like an easy way out to LBJ. If it later turned out there was indeed a communist conspiracy, he could always retaliate in some fashion at that time.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

7 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Incision was made to remove the entrance.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I know that's what Horne wants us to believe...but how do you remove a hole by cutting into it?

Given Pat's history of slandering both witnesses and researchers, and Doug Horne's history of carefully studying a situation and then providing an analysis that makes a great deal of sense... I think it would be wise for the reader to take Pat's paraphrase of Horne's analysis with a grain of salt and to reserve judgement till after reading Horne's actual analysis.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As detailed in Jim D's last book Stone asked Horne this very question, and was given some rigamarole. The bone Horne claims was cut off the head contained no bullet hole, and was inches away from were they claim the bullet entered. So why was no hole in this location observed by those viewing the body at Parkland? Or Bethesda? Or shown on the photos? Or on the A-P x-ray? 

There was no bullet hole there. This whole hole thing got drummed up when Mantik took Robinson's recollection of a small wound on the cheek and started claiming he saw a bullet hole on the forehead. Robinson was asked about this by the ARRB and said it was two or three small wounds on the cheek.And yet here we are 25 years later with Mantik and Horne still claiming Robinson said he saw a hole on the forehead. 

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Scott, for example, has come up with the whole Phase 1 and Phase 2 idea.  That Mexico CIty was done to jump start a war on Castro, but then when LBJ and Hoover put the brakes to that, the idea was to make Oswald into a sociopathic loner model. 

I agree with Peter Dale Scott on that. The plotters' hoped that Johnson would decide to invade Cuba in retaliation for the assassination. (Or even a first nuclear strike against the Soviet Union, at a time when it was thought that America would prevail.) This is Phase 1.

But if Johnson chose to reject the Cuban/Soviet evidence, the plotters wanted to make sure that the Johnson Administration could blame it on Oswald alone. The reason being so the investigation would focus on Oswald and not on identifying the real plotters (CIA elements). For that purpose, the plotters made arrangements in advance to alter photos and films as necessary and as possible, and to control the autopsy. All so that the evidence would indicate gunshots only from the rear.

That explains how the medical and photographic coverup could be done as quickly as it was! (I used to believe that this was a part of the LBJ/FBI coverup, rather than part of the plotters' plan. But that idea made no sense because the LBJ administration couldn't possibly have acted so fast.)

14 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

OMG, it's really hard to take you seriously when you say things like that.

14 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

Lyndon Johnson was EXTREMELY UNHAPPY at being JFK's vice-presidential pick even though LBJ and Sam Rayburn had sexually blackmailed and strongarmed the compromised, unhinged sexual degenerate JFK (and weakling I should add) into putting LBJ onto the 1960 Democratic ticket.

And you come across as a sensationalist.

You're like a walking, talking National Enquirer, IMO. I think that Jim D. must have you on Ignore, given that he doesn't respond to your ridiculous charges.

On 4/21/2024 at 1:25 PM, Christian Toussay said:

... To those following this and who cannot access the pictures: try "right click - open in new tab".

Nope, doesn't work.

I'll bet that if you clear your browser's cache, it won't work for you either. (Because the photos might be loading from your cache. I've seen that happen before, many times, back when I used to write HTML.)

21 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

I think Lyndon Johnson was planning to murder JFK as soon as he got on the Democratic ticket and as soon as he was actually elected Vice President in November of 1960.

OMG, it's really hard to take you seriously when you say things like that.

54 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Of those 65%, I'd bet that 99.8% of them don't know anything about the case.  They've never heard names like Ruth Paine, J.D. Tippit, Howard Brennan and Buell Frazier.  They only know terms like "grassy knoll" and "magic bullet".

If you include in your (hypothetical) poll only people who know a lot of the details, I'll bet that over 90% believe there was a conspiracy.

34 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

On 4/21/2024 at 9:18 PM, Bill Brown said:

"Oswald didn't act alone" is NOT a theory.

No, it's not, is it.  That statement is now an established fact.

3 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

..what are your ideas on the removal of the FBI flash (or how it worked while it was "up" - or should I say how it didn't work....).  ...  Perhaps I should start a different topic on it, focussing on the FBI-CIA interactions.      

I think you should start a new thread. I certainly would like to see people's knowledge and ideas on the topic.

5 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:

Reporting an aversion to procrustean outputs from a faux blackbox constrained by speculative inputs.

I wonder if Google can translate from Bombast to English? You know, for us regular folk.