Sandy Larsen

Citation please. Just on the allegation that the FBI admitted to having Seth Rich's computer and it having DNC e-mails on it. EDIT: Never mind.

Roger, My original claim was that that I trust Robert Mueller's judgement and so I believe what is in his report. His report debunks the Seth Rich theory that you and Keven believe. Keven challenged Mueller's report. I responded by giving sources that supported Mueller's conclusions, and that may have been the sources he used himself. I am not debating with you guys on the theory you believe. I'm defending my belief in Mueller's report by providing support for it. Having straightened that out... Yes, if Mueller is wrong then it is theoretically possible that the e-mails Assange released in July could have come from before Rich's death. (Though that wouldn't explain the non-Rich source for the additional e-mails Assange got in July, after Rich's death.) But I repeat, I trust Robert Mueller's report over the theory you guys believe. (And don't forget, Seymour Hersh admitted that what he'd claimed about Seth Rich was merely an unsubstantiated rumor. And that, because of that, the Fox news report based on it had to be pulled and Fox had to pay a six digit lawsuit settlement for having run it.)

A guy named Brian Huddleston sues the FBI, and within his document he states his opinion regarding Seth Rich. You consider that to be a reliable source for what you believe? This guy's opinion? Oh Please! So I was right... you can't find a reliable source for what you wrote about Seth Rich.

I trust Wikipedia articles because they are sourced. By reputable sources, not far-right or far-left fake news sites. Also because there are competing editors for each article, which helps ensure that BS doesn't get published. Or if it does, it gets challenged and then removed.

Below are two reputable sources reporting what I said. I'll bet you have no reputable sources for your counter-claim. NPR - Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale "I hear gossip," Hersh tells NPR on Monday. "[Butowsky] took two and two and made 45 out of it." The Man Behind The Scenes In Fox News' Discredited Seth Rich Story Hersh now says he was fishing for information from Butowsky. "I did not talk to anybody at the FBI — not about this," Hersh tells NPR. "Nothing is certain until it's proved. And I didn't publish any story on this." Note the Butowsky is the person who took Hersh's story to Fox News. (Who, recall, went with it. The retracted it. Then was sued for it and had to pay six figures to settle the suit.)

The problem with your timeline is that Wikileaks had ALSO been getting DNC e-mail leaks for several months prior to the time Julian Assange said on June 12, 2016 that he had Hillary Clinton related e-mails. You can check that out on the detailed timeline given in this article. That article also lists DNC e-mails received by Wikileaks after Seth Rich's death. See the entry for July 14, 2016. Which is the reason why Mueller reported that Seth Rich was not the source for those leaks. That he was already dead by then. Following is a New York Time article regarding that. It has a paywall so I can't just link to it. Luckily I was able to copy the article before the paywall kicked in.

I doubt you can find a reliable source for that. Because I doubt it is true. When challenged on their reporting of this story, Fox News retracted it without apology or explanation. Seth Rich's family sued Fox News in March 2018 for having engaged in "extreme and outrageous conduct" by fabricating the story defaming their son and thereby intentionally inflicting emotional distress on them. Fox News reached a seven-figure settlement with the Rich family in October 2020

Hersh cautioned that his claim may not be true. He later said that he had relayed "gossip" and that he was fishing for information. (Source)

I don't have a dog in this fight, and am not intimately familiar with the facts. But... According to this Wikipedia article on Julian Assange : According to the Mueller investigation, Assange falsely implied that [Seth] Rich was the source ostensibly to obscure the fact that Russian military intelligence was the source, and Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material. I trust Robert Mueller's judgement and the integrity of the Mueller Report.

Ben, If you insist on getting your Biden digs in, do so in the other political thread that the mods are allowing to run. Bye bye to this one.

Ben, If you insist on getting your Biden digs in, do so in the other political thread that the mods are allowing to run. Bye bye to this one.

It means being aware of prejudice against groups of people, based on race, LGBTQ, and all the other stuff that bugs bigots.

Is being "woke" bad?

I found the message. It is dated May 11, 1953. She said she didn't have time to work for the INS, given her teaching position there in New Orleans. So Bentley was living in New Orleans three years prior to writing her will, which she did in New Orleans. Or near there.

According to: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/68358663/elizabeth-turrill-bentley Bentley taught at various schools in Louisiana and Connecticut "later in life." While I was looking around, I found this compilation of communications between Bentley and the FBI: https://vault.fbi.gov/rosenberg-case/elizabeth-bentley/elizabeth-t.-bentley-part-02-of-1 In one of the messages Bentley sent to headquarters, she commented that the INS wanted her to do some work for them when she "return[ed] to New Orleans." Which implies that that was her residence at the time. (I wish I would have made a note of the date.) BTW, Bentley wrote an autobiography which can be bought in Kindle format for $3. https://www.amazon.com/Out-Bondage-Story-Elizabeth-Bentley/dp/1258668866

Nonsense. As I said, Shelley's first day statement significantly contradicts his later FBI statements, and both of those contradict his WC testimony. None of these observations rely on the films. You've lost touch with reality. First, my list of known liars among the witnesses is not large. Second, some of the difference between the films and the witnesses are due to lying, some are due to misunderstanding, and some are due to alterations in the films. One needs to have the ability to distinguish between these three possibilities in order to uncover the facts. Frankly, your biases keep you from being any good at this.

I interpreted nothing. Lovelady and Shelley both testified that, after the shooting, they stayed on the steps of the TSBD for three to four minutes, at which time Gloria Calvery arrived. In contrast, the Darnell film shows that Gloria Calvery arrived very quickly... within 30 seconds. This is proof that they lied. And it is proof that you are ignorant of these facts. (Given your accusation that it is merely my interpretation of the film and testimony that they lied). Which would be fine if you didn't talk so authoritatively about things you apparently haven't studied in great detail, as if you had. BTW, another lie is when Bill Shelley testified to the WC that he was on the TSBD steps when Gloria Calvary arrived. In contrast, in his first day statement he said that, after the shooting, he immediately ran across Elm Street Extension and bumped into Gloria Calvery there. Only his first day statement is consistent with what we see in the Darnell film. Oh, so now you agree with me that Lovelady and Shelley lied to the WC! At least that is the case if you are aware of their WC testimony. Here you say that they returned to the TSBD rapidly -- within a minute according to Vickie Adams. And yet to the WC they said they spent three to four minutes on the steps before returning. After which they walked to the railroad tracks before entering the TSBD. Right there you have a delay of five or six minutes! Now add to that the time they said they spent at the concrete island across Elm Street Extension; PLUS the time they spent down by where the shots took place. PLUS the time they spent at the railroad yard. I don't recall the numbers, but it was a few minutes at each location. (These were periods of time Lovelady and Shelley told the FBI in their multiple interviews.) So don't give me this nonsense that it's only my INTERPRETATION of the Darnell film and their testimonies that proves they lied.

The Darnell film proves that Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley lied for the Warren Commission. It's naive to think that people don't lie in a coverup. Just like it's naive to think that evidence isn't altered. And it's a disservice to The Cause to preach otherwise.

Pat apparently believes that CIA agents will inform others in the room that they are CIA.

Nope. It's supported by a large amount of circumstantial evidence, of which you are apparently ignorant.

No we can't. They will not be elected.

How would you know if there were CIA agents at the autopsy or not? The fact is, the assassination was a plot created by the CIA at the behest of the military (JCS). Of course the generals at the autopsy would have had some CIA present as well.

Ha! This statement from the guy who throws nearly 50 witnesses under the bus for saying they saw a gaping wound on the back of Kennedy's head. We aren't the witness bashers here Pat, you are.

So, why is it that the CIA's October 10, 1963 cable to the State Department, FBI, INS, and Department of Navy did the following: Gave the wrong name, Lee HENRY Oswald, for the man who had visited (KGB Assassination chief) Valeriy Kostikov? Gave a completely wrong description for the man who had visited Kostikov? Made it sound like the CIA was unsure of the identity of the man who had visited Kostikov? I believe that the answer is that the CIA didn't want to raise any red flags regarding Lee HARVEY Oswald, who would be working in a tall building located along the future path of President Kennedy's motorcade. At the same time, the existence of the cable would show everyone that the CIA had done its job in reporting Oswald's visit the the Soviet Embassy.

Following are descriptions of the two October 10 cables currently under scrutiny, as well as the October 8 cable from Mexico City that triggered them. (See the original cables at the end of the post.) October 8, 1963 Cable from Mexico City to CIA Headquarters On October 8, 1963, the CIA's Mexico City station sent a cable to the Director of the CIA stating that a Lee Oswald had apparently visited with Valeriy Kostikov at the Soviet Embassy. The cable described him as being age 35, athletic build, 6 ft, receding hairline. Sounds like Mystery Man, the man photographed at the Soviet Embassy.: 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. (The cable also ordered that copies be sent to the local (Mexico City) representatives of the State Department, FBI, INS, and the Department of Navy.) October 10, 1963 Cable from CIA Headquarters to Other Departments On October 10, 1963, CIA Headquarters sent a cable to the State Department, FBI, 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. Discussion There is nothing inconsistent between the two October 10 cables. They are composed differently because they are for different audiences. The one sent to the CIA's Mexico City station is an internal CIA report, and it is confident that the Lee Oswald who visited the Soviet Embassy was the same person as the Lee Henry Oswald who had defected to Russia. (I will address the "Henry" part in a moment.) It therefore reported the known height and weight of Lee Henry Oswald. In contrast, the cable sent to the outside departments is more cautious identifying Lee Oswald, stating that he MAY be the same person as Lee Henry Oswald. It therefore didn't reported the known height and weight of Lee Henry Oswald Having said that, there are two unusual pieces of data that Headquarters sent to everybody (both internal and external). First, that the name of the person who defected to Russia was Lee Henry Oswald, which of course should have been Lee Harvey Oswald. Second, the reported weight of Lee Harvey Oswald is a little high. (The reported height of 5 ft 10 in is okay, given that Oswald's height was measured at 5 ft 9 in and 5 ft 11 in when in the Marine Corps.) Oswald's weight when he left the Marine Corps was 150 lb, 15 lb lighter that the reported 165 lb. Conclusions The only things unusual in these three cables are as follows: CIA Headquarters reported Oswald's name as Lee Henry Oswald. CIA Headquarters reported a weight for Oswald that was about 15 lb heavier than his known, measured weight at the time of his departure from the Marine Corps. Note that the info in the October 8 cable from the Mexico City station was probably fabricated, a part of the CIA's plot to implicate Russia in the assassination. But that's a topic for another thread. Pertinent Parts of Original Cables: