Sandy Larsen

12 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

[Sandy] demographically falls right into the typical American Christian in that he's offended by what he sees on TV, but it doesn't translate into any real policy, probably like a lot of Israelis.

Kirk,

I'm a Christian and I abhor wars. But I'm also a realist. Wars happen. Sometimes they are justified.

BTW, it might surprise you to learn that I've been a critic of Israel and of American support of Israel for thirty years.

14 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Sandy, I think to understand what I said, you first have to know the First Commandment and the First Amendment. What i was commenting on first was  the First Commandment which is "I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have strange Gods before me."*

Ah, okay. You were referring to the first of the Ten Commandments.

I don't think of the Ten Commandments as being Christian. I think of them as being part of the Old Law that was fulfilled and obsoleted with the Coming of Christ.

14 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I'm not trying to be challenging, but  I'm not sure if your poll about Israel religious devoutness is any real indication,as policy wise. How are Israeli's any different than you?

I've always just assumed that the Israeli Jews tended to be devout. I mean, why else would they choose to live there?

But now we have new generations of Israeli Jews. And I guess they have become less religious.

There is good reason for me to think that Jews are more religious than others. The fact that they tend to be much more successful than other peoples. Only 2% of Americans are Jews, and yet you see successful ones all the time in the news.

And so I've wondered what it is about Jews that makes them so successful. The only thing I could think of that would be common among them all is their religion. I thought it was their religious teachings that led to their being successful.

But maybe they tend to be successful merely because they are the Chosen People. God favors them.

14 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

* like Joseph Smith, heh heh.   That' really interesting Sandy, I guess i thought Mormons  being Christians had sort of basic knowledge of the traditional tenets like the 10 commandments.

I grew up in a Mormon household in the center of Mormonism, but have been agnostic most my life. I didn't think there was any way to prove there is a god, etc.

I became a believing Christian ten or fifteen years ago, when I discovered what I believe is proof that Jesus rose from the dead. I have also identified Old Testament prophesies that were were fulfilled with amazing accuracy.

Also, several years ago I learned that there actually is proof of a god. Amazingly, even Steven Hawking (among numerous other physicists) knew/know the proof, but may not have realized it as such.

8 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

I wasn't prepared for the file upload limitations, which I have already met.

There is a Forum Tips & Tricks thread pinned at the top of the forum. You might find the following topic there useful in increasing dramatically your attachment/photo space:

How to save an unlimited number of photos to be displayed.

21 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:

What you will be shown if the McMahon analysis is followed, moreover, is that the "Oswald Project," what this thread is about after all, was a long-term insurance policy, begun in the 1940s to offset exposure of the so-called mole.  Linking Oswald to Angleton's mole-hunt effectively shut-down the risk of exposure of the mole during the Kennedy years.  

This should be in its own thread, titled something like "How the Oswald Project was used to protect the identity of Popov's mole.," or "How the Oswald Project was designed to protect the identity of Popov's mole."

This thread is just about the woman who called the Tippits of Connecticut, and the people named in the call.

On 2/25/2024 at 3:00 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

But when I think of the antithesis of "love your neighbor", i think of the current situation of Israel bombing the sh-t out of a  region and killing 30,000 innocent civilians. That can rattle me a little.

I just read that loving one's neighbor is as important in Judaism as it is in Christianity. Which was a surprise to me. I'd always thought of Christianity as being a kinder, more gentle religion.

So I went back to see how Christianity differs from Judaism in that regard. I found that, after Jesus taught his followers to love their neighbors, he went on to say that they should even love their enemies! Judaism doesn't teach that.

In contrast, Judaism teaches the principle of "an eye for an eye." Which doesn't mean that literally, but rather that punishment should be commensurate with the crime. Obviously Israel has been grievously violating that principle.

Wondering how Israeli Jews could justify their excessive response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, I did some digging and discovered that a 2015 Gallup survey determined that 65% of Israelis say they are either "not religious" or are "convinced atheists", while only 30% say they are "religious". That may explain it. Of course, even religious Israelis could be not living their religion.

21 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I don't  get what you're saying Sandy, or what you're inferring from what i said.

Kirk,

One of my pet peeves for decades has been that many Christians don't even know what Jesus's great commandment is, which is to love your neighbor.

So I commented on that.

Upon doing so, I recalled that you'd earlier mentioned the First Commandment. Which you jokingly said you almost called an Amendment.  :o)

I didn't know that Christians had more than one commandment. So I looked it up, and as it turns out, Jesus gave us TWO commandments! (Matthew 22:34-40) First, to love God, and second to love your neighbor. I'd completely forgotten about the first commandment.

So what I wrote to you was to acknowledge that I'd forgotten the First Commandment that you'd mentioned. And I worked into that your joke about almost calling it an amendment.  :o)

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

Be specific pls.  I'm not going to guess.  If anything I have posted you don't understand, just ask: "What do you mean by [XYZ]?"  I'll happily explain.

I don't see the point of most of your posts. If any of it is important, I hope that somebody will comment on it so that I will also know.

To me it just looks like you're pointing out connections that are coincidences.

1 hour ago, Matt Cloud said:

As I remarked elsewhere on this thread, the fundamental issue behind the assassination, indeed the key to understanding it, is the so-called mole in the U-2 program.  John Newman understands this but has misidentified the mole, perhaps on purpose.  It's not Solie.

Matt,

The topic of this thread is the 1963 call to the Tippits in Connecticut about "Lee Harvey Oswald."

Please post unrelated items and comments in relevant threads. Create new threads if necessary.

2 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I viewed the YouTube video once, very casually, and was a bit underwhelmed. When you paused it at (say) 317, the quality was clearly inferior to the scan that has been posted. This is a down-sampled version, right?
 

 

I would think it's a compressed MPEG. The original scans are far too big to download and play in a browser.

But MPEGs, like JPEGs, should still look quite good when not zoomed in. Unless they were excessively compressed.

4 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

So, if you're following here, [1] Navy Secretary Fred Korth was attorney in Oswald's mother's divorce and [2] J.D. Tippit -- of Connecticut -- worked as assistant to Air Force Secretary Harold Brown.

Are you saying #1 and #2 are separately each significant, or are together as a whole significant?

I really don't get many of the points you are trying to make. And I still don't know how John McMahon fits into this.

Though the following coincidences are interesting:

1. By initials only, the name of J.D. Tippit in Connecticut is identical to the name of J.D. Tippit in Texas.
2. The Tippits in Connecticut are from Texas, the same as the Tippits in Texas.
3. The Jack Tippit in Connecticut was a well know cartoonist. (I recall his Henry cartoon.)
4. The two Tippits are close to the same age. About a year apart.
5. There may be more coincidences that I don't recall right now.

"Love your neighbor."

Why is that so hard for many so-called Christians to grasp?

Kirk: I'd forgotten that there is also the First Amendment I mean Commandment, to love God. Maybe because even non-Christians and atheists can appreciate the Second Commandment, stated above.

On 2/19/2024 at 4:17 PM, Paul Jolliffe said:

Elizabeth Bentley was very probably the mysterious woman caller to the Tippit house in Connecticut on 11/30/63.

According to the 11/30/63 FBI report, Bentley said that she would be killed if Gardos, et al discovered that "a woman" had squealed on them regarding HARVEY Oswald. She was dead three days later.

Thanks for pointing that out, Matt.

9 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

 

Thanks Matt!

12 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Fanciful theory, very thinly supported. It can't withstand even cursory scrutiny.

Well it's stronger than your theory. The one that can't explain the fact that the same plotters that ensured Oswald was in the TSBD on 11/22/63 ALSO created pretexts for invasion or war with Cuba and the Soviet Union. You merely brush that aside.

In the meantime, while you're busy criticizing me because my theory is different from yours, I will continue to pick your and other researchers' brains for useful information that can be used to improve my theory.

7 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

NEW, "Director's Cut" of French Zapruder Film Documentary "L'image 313" Now Up on YouTube!'

Keven,

This isn't the documentary we've recently heard about, is it, using the high-definition color log-scale scans?

I thought that one was going to include comments made by Hollywood type film professionals.

21 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Oh, oh....Will perjury and disbarment follow? What were these two thinking?

Cellphone data catches Fani Willis in a lie about romance timeline: investigator - Raw Story

It doesn't matter that they had a romantic relationship. What matters is if Nathan Wade paid her way or bought her stuff after she hired him. Quid pro quo.

Regardless, I doubt she lied. It is known that the two of them have a difference of opinion on when they became romantic. Some will say when a couple holds hands. Others when you kiss. Others when you sleep together. Others when... whatever.

23 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez... Remember when this former "progressive" was competing in the Democratic primaries?  🙄

Gabbard to headline fundraiser at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort | The Hill

She's as loony as MTG.

I heard she's working for FOX now.

15 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Earlier today I asked Geo Kozma if he could provide information we could all see about a relationship between  Emil Gardos and Corvina Press, the Hungarian publisher of “Circus Maximus,” a book that, according to Heritage Auctions, was in LHO’s possessions near the end of his life.

Geo responded that I should look up a Hungarian book entitled “Kárpáti rapszódia (Carpathian Rhapsody).”

Several hits immediately came up using the English translation.  According to TheModernNovel.org, “The Corvina Press translation, long since out of print but not too difficult to obtain, is, frankly, not a great translation but still quite readable….”

First English translation 1963 by Corvina Press
Translated by Grace Blair Gardos

Goodreads.com says: This two volume English translation was published and printed in 1963 by Corvina Press in Hungary. The book was translated into English by Grace Blair Gardos, the American wife of Hungarian Emil Gardos.
 
Geo also said that he doubted Grace had the skills to translate the book, so we might assume that Emil helped her.

And so let’s get this straight.  The anonymous caller said that the man we can surely identify as Emil Gardos was the Hungarian father of “Lee Harvey Oswald.”  Emil’s wife was the American Grace Blair Gardos, who was the translator of an (obscure in America) book by the same Hungarian publisher of a book allegedly in the possession of “Lee Harvey Oswald” near the end of his life.

Pretty interesting, eh?

Yeah that is interesting.

Do we know who translated Circus Maximus? Now THAT would be interesting, if Grace Blair Gardos also translated that.

5 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 See how Armstrong's TWO MARGUERITES FAIRY TALE implodes?

Nope. Because you keep confusing LEE for HARVEY and Marguerite/Mother with the Marguerite imposter.

The only thing you are right about is that John Armstrong was wrong when he said that the Marguerite imposter did not contact Robert when she got injured. According to Robert, she DID contact him.

But you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Armstrong's point was that neither LEE no Robert Oswald did anything to help the Marguerite imposter with her injuries. They didn't even visit her! Marguerite went to several doctor on her own. And why was that? BECAUSE THE MARGUERITE IMPOSTER WASN'T THEIR MOTHER.

10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

@Sandy Larsen @Roger Odisio

There has been some discussion in this thread about the extent of LBJ's involvement in the initial assassination plot, and I've just come across a very recent podcast interview of researcher John Newman which I believe may shed some light on this question.

Thanks Keven. Very interesting!

10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

The primary topic of the excerpt is the July 1961 SIOP (Strategic Integrated Operational Plan for Nuclear Warfare) briefing given by the Joint Chiefs to President Kennedy concerning the plan for a massive nuclear attack on the USSR and China to be implemented in the fall of 1963. LBJ was present for the briefing, and seems to have had an understanding of how determined the Generals were to implement the plan, so much so that...

10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

... in Air Force One on the way to Andrews AFB from Dallas on 11/22/1963, while staring out of a plane window, LBJ asked "Are the missiles flying yet?"

FBI Agent James Hosty, in his book, claims that U.S. military aircraft were on their way to Cuba very early on after the assassination. So the military may indeed have taken it upon themselves to strike. (Those aircraft were called back before they arrived.)

It is my current working theory that the Generals (JCS) initiated the assassination plot and got the CIA to plan it. The plan, besides killing Kennedy, was to have the assassination blamed on Cuba and the Soviet Union... which was accomplished with Mexico City shenanigans and the followup claims of Gilberto Alvarado and Elena Garro .

Immediately when it was known that Kennedy was dead, the Generals sent war planes to strike Cuba. Upon doing so, they informed the guys in the Situation Room that there was intelligence pointing to Cuba and the Soviet Union being behind the assassination.

Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy -- JFK's cabinet members in the Situation Room at the time -- understood the severe consequences of a strike on Cuba, and argued against the General's insubordinate move. Harriman fabricated a story that he'd met with the top Kremlinologists, and that they'd informed him that the Soviet Union definitely would not have had Kennedy assassinated. (As per @Cliff Varnell info.) He informed the Generals that the intelligence was wrong, and that the assassination was the doings of just one person. And then he radioed this information to President Johnson, who was onboard Air Force One returning to Washington.

The Generals called off the Cuban strike.

10 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

I've cued the video in advance for you to begin at 52:29, and you should listen until 1:23:44 to get to the point where LBJ asks the question:

https://youtu.be/fMpZI-VKIPU?si=26WbBgIIlLcZR07e&t=3149

John Newman points out that the Generals were STILL trying to get Johnson to do a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union (and China) in August of 1964, with their Gulf of Tonkin false flag operation.

10 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

On 2/11/2024 at 12:51 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I wish that those who post clues to Z-film alteration would have done so (and will do so) in a dedicated thread. So that this thread would have stayed on topic.

Expand  

 

Chris,

This thread belongs to Roger Odisio. He has the right to go off-topic if he wants. And as long as he is conversing with me off-topic, I have that right as well.

10 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

We didn't find out that the missiles the SU slipped into Cuba in 1962 had nuclear warheads until the 80's but, you say, Johnson wouldn't invade Cuba because of them.

I never said that. You did. Or at least you implied it in this post, where you said:

An invasion of Cuba almost certainly meant a war with the SU.  [Which is something you had already emphasized Johnson did not want.]

As I recall the missiles they snuck into Cuba in '62 had nuclear warheads, which didn't come to light until the '80s. The SU was serious about defending Castro.

5 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:

Quote, Pierre Salinger page 95

Quote

 "Im November 1963 schickte mich Kennedy nach Tokio, um dort seinen in sechs Wochen vorgesehenen Besuch vorzubereiten. Er gab mir die Worte mit auf den Weg. "Ich werde in einen Dialog mit den Nordvietnam eintreten und klarmachen, dass es keinen Krieg geben wird." Am 22. November startete meine Maschine( from Honolulu) -- drei Stunden später erhielt ich die Nachricht, dass Kennedy ermordet worden war. "

English translation via Google Translate:

In November 1963, Kennedy sent me [Pierre Salinger] to Tokyo to prepare for his planned visit in six weeks. He gave me the words: "I will enter into a dialogue with the North Vietnamese and make it clear that there will be no war." On November 22nd my plane took off (from Honolulu) -- three hours later I received the news that Kennedy had been assassinated.

15 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

JFK never said anything about withdrawal without victory to William Bundy, either, nor to Dean Rusk, nor to McGeorge Bundy.

You are merely assuming that to be the case. Even if any of them said that, they may not be telling the truth.

15 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Not one shred of evidence for such an intention is found on the JFK White House tapes. Not one syllable.

It was a new policy, shorty after which Kennedy was killed.

15 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

This is not to mention the fact that every single firsthand statement from JFK himself flatly contradicts the Stone-Prouty-Newman myth.

If what Kennedy said after signing NSAM 263 contradicted it, he clearly did so for political reasons.

15 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

But you guys just don't care. You brush aside all this and much more evidence ...

And you brush aside the most important evidence of all, NSAM 263, which clearly states that Kennedy's policy was to get American troops/advisors out of Vietnam. Target date of 1965.

14 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

When Bobby was asked specifically about this issue in his April 1964 oral interview, he flatly rejected the idea that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam or settle for anything other than victory.

Anybody have an answer for this? Is what Michael claims here a fact?